Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by FearMonkey, Dec 19, 2016.
Looks a little bit like the world of Shadowrun, Cyberpunk city and wasteland.
Geez, these past two years feel like a reboot for Harrison Ford's career.
a new trend in cyberpunk work, sort like dredd 2012 film
I should be excited for this. But the thing is... I'm not. And bear with me, Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies.
But Michael Green (Green Lantern) as lead writer? That's disturbing.
Also, Ridley Scott. Alright, I loved the man. He made several movies that are in my top10 movies of all times, alright. But what about these last years?
Kingdom of Heaven. Exodus. Robin Hood. And freaking Promotheus, which was one of the worst things to ever happen to the franchise. Buttfucked the original script which was excellent, simply by replacing the genius lead writer with... Lost's writer. Good job... Oh, and the greatest ? The original writer, who originally wrote it as an excellent movie, is now forced to have his name on this abomination.
Promotheus, which is the only reason why "the mountains of madness" was buried before it was even born. And promotheus 2 -sorry, "Alien : Covenant" which has killed another masterpiece in the egg : Alien 5 by Neill Blomkamp, which was the only script Sigourney Weaver ever greenlighted for the Alien franchise, which says a lot about its quality.
So, sorry, Ridley Scott has done enough damage for me. Maybe it will be his redeeming masterpiece. But I seriously doubt it.
The trailer ... is shit. There. I said it. No honestly, it totally leaves me unimpressed and not wanting to see it. The magic seems to be out and neither Ford nor Scott are in their prime time again. It's like watching a 70 year old Box Champion getting back to business again ...
Blade Runner is one of my favourite Sci Fi movies, and I also loved the book. And I just don't see how a 'Sequel' in this day and age could work. Not to mention that it is one of those movies, that really didn't need a Sequel.
He's definitely struggling to find it [the magic] again whereas someone like George Miller can just come out swinging with something like Mad Max Fury Road.
Maybe there will be a substantial turn-around here, since he's co-producing the film. The director they've chosen is quite strong.
True, but the director has no say in the actual content. It's the lead writer and the producer, and Ridley Scott already announced that he will not allow a director's cut, which is a dick move is anything.
As for George Miller, true, the old man really blew everyone with Fury Road. But then again, it took him years and years of development hell, and even today, he struggles to convince the studio to greenlight the two next Mad Max, considering that they didn't bring as much money as Fast and Furious and shit. Such a shame, really.
I think Red Letter Media nailed the issue on the head (if you parallel it to Hollywood in general) when they were talking about the future of the Star Wars franchise. We're going to see extremely safe, technically competent Star Wars movies every Holiday season for the foreseeable future - for better or for worse.
Rogue One has proven that the yearly release model for Star Wars isn't going to be sustainable (290 million box office opening for a 200 million production budget [400 million if you factor in marketing]).
With regards to Bladerunner, I'm kind of hoping it's not a soft-reboot and it actually pushes the story forward...who knows . When Avatar is slated for 9+ sequels, I have very little hope for Hollywood surprising me anymore.
Rogue One is actually a pretty risky move, considering that it's the first star wars who doesn't really aims at the children. Which is... surprisingly "brave", coming from Disney. I mean, hell, the movie is brutal and morally grey stories usually don't work with children. I'll try to find out if the 290M box office is domestic or total though, the chinese market will be the determining factor, like for Warcraft. I hope it will cash in, in the end... it would show Disney that taking risks and renewing the audience with a different approach can actually work (I found it better and more original than all the four last movies, to be honest. It even reminded me of the first time I saw the Empire Strikes Back). Otherwise, true, we might have very generic star wars in the future.
The determining movie will probably be Assassin's creed though. Many studios are looking at his results with great attention. If it brings a lot of money, you gotta expect a shitload of game adaptations. And since major studios always fail to acknowledge that there are more young adult gamers than teenagers (I think the average age is around 27 years old, I'll try to find the study about it), they will make movies aimed at the young audience in priority. In other words, I hope that Assassin's creed ends up with a box-office meh, and Rogue One to cash in.
As for Blade Runner, yeah, I hope I'm wrong of course. Maybe it will be a masterpiece. But I'll wait for it to be online though. I've had enough with Ridley Scott and the damages he has done to promising projects and careers, he won't get a penny from me from now on. What he did to Alien is one of the biggest dickmoves I can think of in the industry, really.
The 290 is worldwide to my understanding. I don't think Rogue One is out in China yet (January 6th?). We'll see if Donnie Yen (and that other guy) are enough to gather Chinese interest in the Star Wars universe.
Speaking of AC, I feel as though Ubisoft held off on releasing another AC title because they were anticipating the movie. They're gonna announce a new AC title within the year and rake in the dough. Smart move.
Another film that does need a sequel. When we people starting on their own ideas !????
Scott did say that Deckard was a replicant, an assertion that I didn't like. I'm glad that the trailer is close to confirming that Deckard isn't a replicant, which means Scott rescinded the assertion, which might be a sign that he's taking advice in a way that's better than before. The great news that overshadows my suspicions of Scott as producer is that Villeneuve, Fancher and Deakins are working on it.
TFA doesn't aim at children either. Blood all over the place. Stormtroopers being knocked back 100 feet from laser bolts instead of just being shot and falling over like in the OT/PT. Rathtars. Seriously though, that blood. laser bolts should cauterize wounds. No reason for someone to be bleeding all over the snow except for "omg star wars has blood, teens should love this!". TFA was aimed at teens and adults, not kids.
My erection is barely contained.
Actually, laser bolts would not cauterize wounds at all. All the damage is done by rapid thermal expansion of superheated tissue from a tiny spot, it's way too fast to cauterize anything. Laser wounds from weapons like that will be ragged and disgusting.
Soft reboot? Doesn't look like it. It has an old Deckard explicitly talking about how things were, and it's apparently set thirty years after the last one.
True indeed. Yet, the conflict in TFA is extremely simple, like in the previous titles : first order is evil, resistance is good. Good defeats evil by being good etc. A child can understand that. So, sure the violence is a little graphic, but I also remember an arm being cut in half, with blood in close up, in "a New Hope". Even if torture happens offscreen, it is still used against Leia and Han Solo, and it's also a very violent concept in a story for children and teens. And let's not even get started with Anakin's mutilations. The new movies aren't way more violent, in the end.
What I mean when I say that Rogue One is not for kids, it's that it presents factions as morally grey, and that's rarely the case in a movie for children. The good vs evil structure is twisted, and I'd have trouble giving a simple answer to a child who'd ask "But isn't he/she good/evil ?", this time. I'm not sure that this audience could, and would like to grasp the reasons why there are so much inner conflicts within the factions. Which is why I don't think that the children are their audience target, this time.
Mad Max 4 was certainly a good movie and entertaining in what it wanted to achieve. But it isn't a Mad Max movie for me. Hell already Mad Max 2 and 3 started to vastily steer away from what the first movie wanted to be. But I also don't think that anyone could create a Mad Max movie today, that was in the spirit of the first one, because the movie was made under very pecuilar conditions. Fuck, the team had so little money for the prodction, that the director wasted half of his own property just to get some of the action scenes done. Movies like Mad Max 4 or the Force Awakens, are products first, highly polished and well crafted entertainment, but still at the end of the day, just products where the magic words are key demographic, marketing and merchendize. Just look at Star Wars, and tell me that wasn't a huge motivation behind any new Star Wars movie - well maybe except for Roque One, I havn't seen it yet.
The point is, it doesn't really matter if Deckard is a replicant or not. As far as the movie goes, Deckard is supposed to represent the audience here, from a certain angle, and it is up to the viewer to decide and think about it. That is what makes great Sci-Fi in my opinion, it's not about to explain everything, bot to make you think, how people would deal with a certain extreme stiation like some incredible technology, or maybe the unkown killer creature like in Alien, or uber-strong replicants/androids with their own personality.
Maybe, Scott should have tried to really get something new going, maybe Mountain of Madness, or a HBO like series of Dune, that's something I would really like to see an accurate adabtion of the books.
What made the spirit in the first one different from what we got in Fury Road?
For example, the fact that it was not a 'totall' apocalypse or that the action was more believable - particularly if you compare Max 1 and 4, Max was also a different kind of character and personality. It's hard to describe it. It simply felt more 'grounded'. I mean, we are talking about comparing
Spoiler: The Night Rider
Spoiler: Guitar Scene
YOu can't tell me that there are not some distinctive differences in tone, action, pacing and style.
I understand. Is it perhaps because the films are chronicling Max's presupposed descent into madness [the changing wasteland is a metaphor for his current state of mind]? He's kind of become a wandering jackal that helps people incidentally, rather than intentionally. I think the second one kind of explored this a little when he goes up to a guy and just straight up takes his boots after he and his passenger were viciously attacked by bandits. He did the same thing in Fury Road when he ditched a pregnant woman and her sisters and tried to hightail it in the big rig.