Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!!

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 26/6/2012 12:42:48 AM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots
True, but reading your title and the repeating of it in the body of the thread could lead one to believe you were being serious, that's all. Were you being ironic with your post, because you continued to discuss and argue your points....?

_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 31
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 26/6/2012 2:47:33 AM   
Rhubarb


Posts: 24508
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: No Direction Home

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

I love how disgruntled fanboys always diss George Lucas and Ridley Scott. You know, the two most influential filmmakers of the last forty years!

I’ve been reading a lot lately online about how “overrated” Ridley Scott is. That he’s “just a visual stylist.” How his only good films are Alien and Blade Runner! What? The two films which so revolutionised a genre that they continue to be ripped-off to this day? Is that all? What a talentless (visual) hack that man is. All style and no substance, right guys? Oh, hang on a minute – the style IS the substance! In a whole new visual aesthetic sort of way. Like I said, revolutionary.

George Lucas, however, didn’t revolutionise a genre. No, he revolutionised filmmaking itself! Indeed, you could say he revolutionised the world. Seriously.

The social and cultural impact of Star Wars simply cannot be measured. Its phenomenal commercial success immediately triggered a sci-fi boom of pale imitations which slavishly copied that instantly iconic shot of a frickin’ huge spaceship flying over audiences’ heads and precious little else - Saturn 3, The Black Hole, Battlestar Galactica, etc, etc, etc.

It also inspired none other than Ridley Scott to drop his plans to follow up The Duellists with the similarly “esoteric” Tristan and Isolde. Scott himself has acknowledged this, especially Lucas’ game-changing notion of “a used future.” Before Star Wars space movies were all gleaming, shiny and new – to this day everything in Star Trek still looks like it just rolled off the assembly line! So no Star Wars, no Alien. No Alien, no Blade Runner. No Blade Runner, no Se7en, no Matrix and no Batman Begins - it’s no surprise that Christopher Nolan’s favourite film is Blade Runner. I expect it’s the favourite film of a lot of directors working today.

Indeed, one way or another, directly or indirectly, George Lucas has influenced an entire generation of filmmakers. Lucas influenced Scott who influenced James Cameron, David Fincher (who started out at ILM as a teenager), Peter Jackson and The Wachowskis. And where would Kevin Smith be without Star Wars? Still jockeying a register at some local convenience store, I expect.

(Ridley wasn’t the only Scott brother influenced by Lucas either - even Top Gun was pitched to the studios as “Star Wars with real planes”! So no Star Wars, no Simpson & Bruckheimer? Possibly. And no, Lucas can no more be blamed for Michael Bay than Joy Division can be blamed for goths!)

Also, by popularising Joseph Campbell’s theories, Lucas inadvertently ensured that “The Hero’s Journey” became THE Hollywood scriptwriting template/cliché for decades to come. Like Star Wars, the seemingly disparate Matrix and Harry Potter both feature downtrodden Messianic heroes from humble origins, mystical guru/mentor/ surrogate father figures, evil surrogate or actual father figures as well as numerous “threshold guardians” along the way which seek to prevent their respective heroes’ “call to adventure” – Tusken Raiders, robot squids, Dementors, etc. Harry Potter even has the very Luke/Han/Leia holy trinity of Harry/Ron/Hermione. (Ron and Hermione even cop off with each other as written in The Good Book – The Hero With A Thousand Faces!)

Oh aye, and without Star Wars, I seriously doubt Star Trek would ever have come back the way it did. Sure, there was gonna be a new Star Trek TV series in the 70s before Star Wars made Gene Roddenberry think again and retool his pilot script as Star Trek The Motion Picture (complete with frickin’ huge spaceships flying overhead – natch!) So no Star Wars, no Star Trek franchise. And no recent re-boot by self-confessed Star Wars fan, JJ Abrams. Heresy, I know. But don’t take my word for it. Why do you think Leonard Nimoy called a chapter of his autobiography “Thank You George Lucas…”?

Too much? Then just try to imagine what the cinematic and cultural landscape would be like if Star Wars (and Alien and Blade Runner) had never happened. And don’t say if Lucas hadn’t made Star Wars then someone else would have come along and done something similar. No they wouldn’t have. Without Star Wars science fiction movies would still look like Logan’s Run! And all the online naysayers would have to bitch and moan about something else. Like the lack of a really good science fiction movie since 2001 probably!

And that’s not all. Because he invested the vast profits generated by Star Wars and its much-maligned merchandising (which I was always happy to get for Christmas when I was a kid!) back into his filmmaking business rather than shoving them up his nose (unlike “cooler” filmmakers of his generation), we also have Lucas to thank for: modern film production values; THX sound (and the revival of orchestral film scores); modern special effects (where ILM led others followed, including Digital Domain and Weta); the CGI revolution (no ILM, no Abyss; no Abyss, no T2; no T2, no Jurassic Park, Gladiator or Lord of the Rings probably); Pixar (which started out as Lucas Digital before The Great Beard sold it to Steve Jobs – so no Star Wars, no Pixar; no Pixar, no Toy Story; no Toy Story, no computer animation revolution either); AVID (the non-linear digital editing system started life as ILM’s Edit Droid); and, believe it or not, Photoshop - co-created by ILM-er, John Knoll.

And that’s just off the top of my head. Grud only knows what else we take for granted on screen and off which wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for Star Wars. And I haven’t even mentioned Indiana Jones! (I haven’t forgotten about Spielberg either, but he gets respect, Oscars and everything!)

I just thought of another one. Knowing that Star Wars was coming and suspecting that science fiction could well be the next big thing, an incredibly prescient Pat Mills created 2000AD. So no Star Wars, no 2000AD, no “British Invasion” of DC comics, no Alan Moore, no Watchmen and no forthcoming Dredd movie. Talk about a butterfly farting in Tokyo!

I’m sure he must be laughing all the way to the bank (the banks probably go to him these days!) but no wonder Lucas is so pissed-off at the endless online sniping from clueless, ungrateful wee fanboys who, let’s face it, are unlikely to ever venture, blinking, from their mothers’ basements. Or their grandmothers’ undies!

I mean, what have we ever done? Or are ever likely to do? Huh? As James Cameron supposedly said to one of his many ex-wives: “Any assh*le can be a husband and a father. Only three other people in the world can do what I do!” Delightful. But true - Lucas and Scott are two of them. Those who can, do. Those who can’t, blog. * sob *

The dog’s abuse Cameron gets for daring to make Titanic and Avatar, you’d think he’d never made Terminator or Aliens. (So you didn’t like Titanic. Fine. No need to make an epic production out of it. It’s not like it was a disaster or something. Er…)

Cameron gets the same crap ritualistically flung at him that Lucas does – “He can’t write.” Sure he can’t. The guy who wrote and directed the two most commercially successful movies of all-time (mainly thanks to repeat business and, admittedly, a combination of the inflation rate and rip-off 3D ticket prices) and who came up with “Fuck you, azzhole!” and “Get away from her, YOU BITCH!” doesn’t know how to tell a good story. Sure he doesn’t!

Indeed no less an authority than screenwriting legend William Goldman has said the one Oscar nod Titanic should have got was for best screenplay on account of its storytelling not its dialogue (which, admittedly did make me want to chew my own arm off at times – “Something Picasso”!?!), and that it was snobbery pure and simple that it didn’t. Snobbery – now there’s a word. So some of the dialogue in Titanic and Avatar was corny. So what? And “I know now why you cry,” and Newt’s “Mommy!” at the end of Aliens aren’t?

I have a wee theory about Avatar, BTW. Essentially an inversion of Aliens where we’re the bad guys, I think this makes a lot of fanboys uncomfortable. We can be a conservative bunch (as well as nostalgaic – funny, you’d expect science fiction fans of all people to be progressive and forward-looking) and want to be on the side of the snarling tough guys with the guns not the blue treehugging hippies! (Cameron musta mellowed in his old age. I wonder if his crews would agree with that assessment…)

Listen to me. I’m ramblin’ again. Now where was I…? Oh aye, a lot of people will change their tune about George Lucas when he’s gone. There won’t just be Oscars named after him. There will be streets and schools named after him as well. Anyone fancy going for a wee stroll down Disgruntled Fanboy Boulevard? No, I thought not.

Not bad for someone who can’t write. Or direct. Sure, Lucas does have a tin ear for dialogue – there’s no denying it. But as William Goldman (him again!) points out, there’s more to good screenwriting than sparkling dialogue. “Screenplays are structure,” goes the familiar Goldman refrain. And there is no way the creator of Star Wars and Indiana Jones doesn’t know how to tell a rattling good story. (Goldman’s other mantra is: “Nobody knows anything.” That goes double for fanboys!)

Oh, and try these oft-quoted zingers on for size: That’s no moon, it’s a space station; These aren’t the droids you’re looking for; and – oh, how does it go again? - May the force be with you. I love it when people who can’t spell tell professional storytellers they can’t write!

Even if it was true that George Lucas hasn’t done anything decent since the original Star Wars trilogy (and Ridley Scott hasn’t done anything decent since Alien and Blade Runner) that’s kinda like saying Michelangelo hasn’t done anything decent since he painted that ceiling!

Don’t get me wrong. Nobody’s perfect. (Legend? Howard the Duck? And what’s with Lucas’ obsession with surrogate fathers and sons?) I’m no mindless idolator, drooling sycophant (Psychofant?), or wilfully blinkered apologist. And this is no fawning hagiography. Merely an attempt to redress the balance a little in light of the frankly witless criticism of these two I routinely read online.

Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions no matter how half-baked or arse-witted - indeed, some fans are welcome to them! But legitimate and constructive criticism is one thing. Personal abuse bordering on contempt is something else entirely. Sure, Prometheus and The Phantom Menace aren’t great - although it really is far too early to judge the former reliably. But you’d think Lucas and Scott were (star) war criminals the way some fanboys carry on. Bin Laden didn’t invite the kind of online opprobrium that Lucas endures.

The fanboy’s lot is not a happy one. We seem to be made to suffer. And moan. It’s our lot in life. We all feel let down sometimes. But some fans take this way too far, treating every disappointment like it was a personal affront or an insult directed at them specifically. Lucas and Scott can’t have shagged all their mothers, surely!

Far too many fans act like they are owed something. Like their loyalty somehow makes the recipients of their wide-eyed adoration beholden to them in some way. This can all too easily spill over into bitterness and resentment – love’s like that. But that way madness and obsession lies. Yes, I am talking Mark Chapman and Annie Wilkes. They were number one fans too!

I’m all for fair comment and constructive criticism but all this pettifogging nitpicking and kneejerk online hostility for its own sake strikes me as sheer churlishness.

I’m really looking forward to The Dark Knight Rises and, especially, Dredd. But if they’re not very good or simply fail to live up to impossibly high expectations it won’t be the end of the world. Nor will a disappointing Bat threequel in any way make me want to question Christopher Nolan’s undoubted skills as a filmmaker or radically reassess his * ahem * bat catalogue.

And I’m sorry (No I’m not!), but anyone who thinks a disappointing prequel to a much-loved (possibly overrated) classic somehow amounts to “The Rape of Their Childhood” is overreacting more than a tad and maybe, just maybe, is being a wee bit disproportionate as well as jawdroppingly offensive and stultifyingly insensitive. It IS only a movie, after all. I mean FFS!

The long-awaited Prometheus has suffered from the same unrealistically sky-high expectations that The Phantom Menace did - Prometheus has even been compared to the much-maligned Star Wars prequel. But no film could ever hope to live up to that level of rabid fanticipation. The Dark Knight Rises beware…

If you insist on demanding the impossible all the time you are surely doomed to a lifetime of crushing disappointment. Somehow I suspect a lot of online fanboys already are, hence their bitterness and resentment born of frustration. Angry. Angry young men. Who clearly have never seen The Simpsons, hence the alarming prevalence of the frequent (and unironic) online outburst: “Worst. Film. EVER!”

So the next time you feel the need to spit venom at the two most influential filmmakers of the last 40 years for trying to entertain you, well, a bit of respect, eh guys? And if you can’t manage that, how about a bit of perspective?

Or, to put it another way –

*snort* * sniff* *dribble* * drool *

LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!!!


(Thought I’d chuck that in there before someone else did it for me.)

Phew! That’s better. Sorry to go off on one but that’s been bugging me for a while now. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. Now… let the backlash begin!

Eh? Sorry? What was that? Lucas and Scott hog all the credit for the work of others vastly more “creative” than they are? Well DUH! Film is a collaborative medium after all – auteur theory, my ass! But as Sir Ridley says: someone has to drive the bus!

End of rant. Abnormal service will be resumed as soon as possible.




Oh right.

_____________________________

Team Ginge
WWLD?


quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

You organisational skills sicken me, Rhubarb.



(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 32
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 26/6/2012 10:09:17 AM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
I won't lie: I didn' read the whole opening essay. Here's my thoughts on Ridley and Lucas anyway..

George Lucas is a very average filmmaker but definitely was in the right place at the right time and created a universe that children and adults alike adored., unlike anyhing hey had seen before. He ignored science and had loud explosions in space and incest and all kinds of crazy looking, and vaguely racist, aliens and people lapped it up in their millions.

Even if you happen to dislike his films entirely you cannot deny his other contribution to cinemas as we know them today: his THX soundsystem that helped change the crappy little cinemas of the 70s into the large mulitplexes of today, along with the help of his buddy Spielberg.



As for Ridley, he certainly has better films under his belt and two that regularly show up into in the the 'best of he best' lists all the time in Blade Runner and Alien. At his worst he simply makes dull beautiful films and obviously at his best he makes Blade Runner.

But why oh why Blade Runner 2?? Sounds like he has been hanging around with Lucas too much these days.

_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to Rhubarb)
Post #: 33
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 26/6/2012 11:15:10 AM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1892
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

True, but reading your title and the repeating of it in the body of the thread could lead one to believe you were being serious, that's all. Were you being ironic with your post, because you continued to discuss and argue your points....?



Remember the online rant culminating in LEAVE! BRITNEY!! ALONE!!!!! The OP is referencing that, no?

As someone who has ranted a bit about the prequels (though never to the Lucas should fuck off and die levels of some mentalists) can see how a thread like this could be considered ironic, as well as meant to make people perhaps think about not kicking off quite so much and maybe, just maybe, not using the protection of the internet to say things like so and so is a scum sucking cockface, or whatever if you would not have the guts to say it to them if they were looking you in the eye (and perhaps a touch of having a go at making online ranters feel how it feels to be called the kind of things they call people they have never met but feel entitled to insult?).

I have no intention of putting my money where my mouth is re my often offered, uninvited and certainly mostly unencouraged 'maybe it would be better had it been done this way' or 'wouldn't it be a good idea if this franchise went in direction x' comments. That's not how the film industry works, unless you are George Lucas and can afford to do what you want, whatever anyone thinks. But I do usually attempt to justify my, ahem, vision with why I think certain ideas would flyand I'd certainly welcome the opportunity to put other people's money where my mouth is (that is generally how the film industry works and WHY most directors have to satisfy the studio, but as with Nolan, if you do the basic requirements of genre well enough, you can use genre to tell whatever story you want, and too often what is in a genre is too generic but that's a whole other debate).

LEAVE! BRITNEY...er, I mean GEORGE AND RIDLEY!! ALONE!!!!

< Message edited by jobloffski -- 26/6/2012 11:20:40 AM >


_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 34
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 26/6/2012 4:37:05 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

True, but reading your title and the repeating of it in the body of the thread could lead one to believe you were being serious, that's all. Were you being ironic with your post, because you continued to discuss and argue your points....?


No, just the title.

I thought I was making a serious point though not without humour. But second-guessing the obvious criticisms (and likely misinterpretations) of what I was trying to say, I incorporated as many of them into it as I could think of. Realising I could be compared to that drooling Britney nutter on YouTube, I thought I'd do it first. My post was always going to end on that line. I also thought it was good, attention-seeking title - natch!


< Message edited by chris kilby -- 27/6/2012 1:52:51 PM >

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 35
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 26/6/2012 4:50:47 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

I won't lie: I didn' read the whole opening essay. Here's my thoughts on Ridley and Lucas anyway..

George Lucas is a very average filmmaker but definitely was in the right place at the right time and created a universe that children and adults alike adored., unlike anyhing hey had seen before. He ignored science and had loud explosions in space and incest and all kinds of crazy looking, and vaguely racist, aliens and people lapped it up in their millions.

Even if you happen to dislike his films entirely you cannot deny his other contribution to cinemas as we know them today: his THX soundsystem that helped change the crappy little cinemas of the 70s into the large mulitplexes of today, along with the help of his buddy Spielberg.



As for Ridley, he certainly has better films under his belt and two that regularly show up into in the the 'best of he best' lists all the time in Blade Runner and Alien. At his worst he simply makes dull beautiful films and obviously at his best he makes Blade Runner.


Yup, that's about the size of it.

quote:

But why oh why Blade Runner 2?? Sounds like he has been hanging around with Lucas too much these days.


Well he's not getting any younger, is he? Can you really blame the guy for wanting to revisit past glories in his twilight years? I kinda think of Prometheus and the proposed Blade Runner 2 (I'll believe it when I see it!) as a bit of a victory lap!

To be fair, Scott has been talking about an Alien prequel about the "Space Jockeys" since an interview he did with Starburst magazine in 1980! (And he has regularly mused about it on various Alien DVD commentaries.) But the idea of a Blade Runner sequel does seem to have come out of the, er, smog. With Bud Yorkin - the "bad guy" of Blade Runner and the producer most often blamed for that goddamn "Irving the Explainer" voice over - announcing a sequel first, maybe Scott just doesn't want him or anyone else fucking it up again. Despite what he told EMPIRE recently, maybe Scott does want to protect his legacy after all.

(Who said "He wants to fuck up Blade Runner himself"? Well if someone absolutely has to to "fuck it up," I'd rather it was Ridley Scott!)

(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 36
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 26/6/2012 4:57:08 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

True, but reading your title and the repeating of it in the body of the thread could lead one to believe you were being serious, that's all. Were you being ironic with your post, because you continued to discuss and argue your points....?



Remember the online rant culminating in LEAVE! BRITNEY!! ALONE!!!!! The OP is referencing that, no?

As someone who has ranted a bit about the prequels (though never to the Lucas should fuck off and die levels of some mentalists) can see how a thread like this could be considered ironic, as well as meant to make people perhaps think about not kicking off quite so much and maybe, just maybe, not using the protection of the internet to say things like so and so is a scum sucking cockface, or whatever if you would not have the guts to say it to them if they were looking you in the eye (and perhaps a touch of having a go at making online ranters feel how it feels to be called the kind of things they call people they have never met but feel entitled to insult?).

I have no intention of putting my money where my mouth is re my often offered, uninvited and certainly mostly unencouraged 'maybe it would be better had it been done this way' or 'wouldn't it be a good idea if this franchise went in direction x' comments. That's not how the film industry works, unless you are George Lucas and can afford to do what you want, whatever anyone thinks. But I do usually attempt to justify my, ahem, vision with why I think certain ideas would flyand I'd certainly welcome the opportunity to put other people's money where my mouth is (that is generally how the film industry works and WHY most directors have to satisfy the studio, but as with Nolan, if you do the basic requirements of genre well enough, you can use genre to tell whatever story you want, and too often what is in a genre is too generic but that's a whole other debate).

LEAVE! BRITNEY...er, I mean GEORGE AND RIDLEY!! ALONE!!!!


Exactly! You read my mind. And my post. Thank you.

I don't have a problem with criticism per se. It's the general tenor and tone (as well as volume!) of much of it online which I object to. There is a virtual world of difference between constructive, valid criticism and the frankly rabid personal abuse which so often passes for it online. To quote a certain Jedi Knight, it's just so... uncivilised. Like I said, I was merely trying to redress the balance a little.

(I was going to call this thread: 'BACK OFF, SCUMBAGS!!!!' but I thought that might have been a bit much...*)








* That was a joke, BTW. LOLZ, etc.

< Message edited by chris kilby -- 26/6/2012 5:06:12 PM >

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 37
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 26/6/2012 7:19:05 PM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere
Blade Runner 2.



LEAVE BLADE RUNNER. ALONE!!

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 38
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 26/6/2012 7:36:58 PM   
prontron07

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 30/8/2009
From: oklahoma,usa
I only have a problem with lucas is with the new indy picture and phantom menace. And scott all i have is good things to say one of my favourites

_____________________________

You see, in this world, there's two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 39
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 26/6/2012 10:53:11 PM   
djdarrenjames


Posts: 626
Joined: 29/10/2008
From: There and back again
I read your whole post and you are right on one important point and that is how fanboys go too far allowing disapointment to become hatred and personal attacks.
Now, I would never take anything away from Lucas or Ridley for what they brought to cinema but it was a long time ago (pun not intended) but as far as Lucas is concerned, he fucked up royal with the prequels and then went and fucked up again with Indy. The guy has lost his touch and though he can claim some love and some immunity (with me anyway) for what he did, he has to take the flak for what he is doing. It's the nature of the beast. He fooled himself into thinking he could direct, and the prequels were the result. He CAN write, the original screenplays for the prequels kinda work so I feel the fuck up came during his control freakness during the actual making. Interestingly, I blame Rick McCallum in equal measure for being a gutless 'yes-man'.

When you create something so special and then go and fuck it all up three times, disapointment manifests itself in shit slinging.
Passion does this to FANS in all areas; music, sports, TV, novels, have invested time, places in their hearts and minds and more importantly, money... lots and lots of money.
As a parting shot, I do believe that he DOES owe his fans to release the original cuts, without his fans (and spielberg) he'd be nothing.


_____________________________

This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then - explode.

(in reply to prontron07)
Post #: 40
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 26/6/2012 11:20:22 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots
quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

True, but reading your title and the repeating of it in the body of the thread could lead one to believe you were being serious, that's all. Were you being ironic with your post, because you continued to discuss and argue your points....?



Remember the online rant culminating in LEAVE! BRITNEY!! ALONE!!!!! The OP is referencing that, no?


I know, my point was others might not

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris Kilby
No, just the title.

I thought I was making a serious point though not without humour. But second-guessing the obvious criticisms (and likely misinterpretations) of what I was trying to say, I incorporated as many of them into it as I could think of. Realising I could be compared that drooling Britney nutter on YouTube, I thought I'd do it first. My post was always going to end on that line. I also thought it was good, attention-seeking title - natch!


Ok, I think we sort have have to get one thing straight here. I really don't care about Scott or Lucas I am not a major fan of either, my initial post was in reaction to your reaction do Daz's post-

quote:

You could even say you're welcome to them. Angry. Angry young fan. Su-perb!

(Something tells me you didn't read much past the title of this thread


I just found that very strange as nothing in Daz's post suggested he was either angry or a 'superfan'.Or that he hadn't read the opening post (although, there was also nothing to say he did) Daz was just being Daz, although, I can see why you wouldn't really know that seeing as you haven't posted much in the past 2 years, so that's ok.

< Message edited by Shifty Bench -- 26/6/2012 11:21:05 PM >


_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 41
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 12:41:07 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 31/3/2010
Well, I know that Daz washes whiter - with that special blue-y whiteness you'll like!

(Have YOU taken the Daz Doorstep Challenge...?)

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 42
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 12:45:53 AM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots
This is very true.

And if Shane Ritchie shows up at my door, it would be a challenge for me not to smack him on his head.




_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 43
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 1:15:58 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey

Blade Runner 2.



LEAVE BLADE RUNNER. ALONE!!


Yeah, it'll probably be rubbish. Most belated sequels are. And yet... And yet... Blade Runner was always so compromised from the start, long before anxious financiers (and idiot preview audiences) forced that "Irving the Explainer" voice over and tacked-on happy ending to its original theatrical release.

Blade Runner lost a lot of expensive, hard-to-realise setpieces during its equally tortuous pre-production (Deckard's arrival in LA by train; Batty and co's escape from the off-world colonies, etc) which maybe Scott would still like to realise now effects technology has caught up with his imagination and he has the clout and resources to achieve them.

While I'm not sure about a direct sequel to Blade Runner, I for one would dearly love to see more of that world and maybe a further exploration of its rich, er, Dickish themes of memory, identity and humanity - there are plenty of unfilmed Philip K Dick novels along similar lines which could serve as the basis of a Blade Runner sequel. (The film of Minority Report was originally going to be Total Recall 2 remember!)

Blade Runner is one of my all-time favourites. Always has been, always will be - I too was there (in an empty cinema!) back in the day. But there is no denying it remains a flawed, hopelessly compromised film (even in its 'Final Cut' form) and far from what Scott originally hoped to achieve. Now while that is exactly the sort of forced compromise which often results in great art (necessity being the mother of invention and all that - unlimited resources didn't make The Phantom Menace a better film than Star Wars, did it? Quite the opposite) there is still a lot of 'tell don't show' in Blade Runner. And I don't know about anyone else, but I would quite like to see attack ships on fire off the Shoulder of Orion; C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate; I want to see things you people wouldn't believe!

So yeah, a Blade Runner sequel would probably suck. Most sequels do, belated sequels especially. But you never know. It might not. It might even be good. So benefit of the doubt, eh guys?

(And even if 'Blade Runner 2' sucks the paint job off a star destroyer, it won't detract from the original one whit, so what's the problem? The Godfather Part III doesn't adversely affect Parts I and II in the slightest. Nor, if you are that way inclined, does Prometheus 'harm' Alien any more than some of its sequels did. These things are always easily-ignored if you so wish. Besides, Scott first mooted what became Prometheus more than 30 years ago, so I'll believe it when I see it!)

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 44
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 1:17:12 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

This is very true.

And if Shane Ritchie shows up at my door, it would be a challenge for me not to smack him on his head.





Fair enough. But what if Lucas and Scott turned up on your doorstep...?

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 45
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 1:25:35 AM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots
Well, I'm not a Star Wars fan, so I wouldn't be all 'fanboy' about it. I do like a couple of Ridley Scott films, though, that may be cool. I'd offer them some tea.

_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 46
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 1:38:20 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey

Blade Runner 2.



LEAVE BLADE RUNNER. ALONE!!


Yeah, it'll probably be rubbish. Most belated sequels are. And yet... And yet... Blade Runner was always so compromised from the start, long before anxious financiers (and idiot preview audiences) forced that "Irving the Explainer" voice over and tacked-on happy ending to its original theatrical release.

Blade Runner lost a lot of expensive, hard-to-realise setpieces during its equally tortuous pre-production (Deckard's arrival in LA by train; Batty and co's escape from the off-world colonies, etc) which maybe Scott would still like to realise now effects technology has caught up with his imagination and he has the clout and resources to achieve them.

While I'm not sure about a direct sequel to Blade Runner, I for one would dearly love to see more of that world and maybe a further exploration of its rich, er, Dickish themes of memory, identity and humanity - there are plenty of unfilmed Philip K Dick novels along similar lines which could serve as the basis of a Blade Runner sequel. (The film of Minority Report was originally going to be Total Recall 2 remember!)

Blade Runner is one of my all-time favourites. Always has been, always will be - I too was there (in an empty cinema!) back in the day. But there is no denying it remains a flawed, hopelessly compromised film (even in its 'Final Cut' form) and far from what Scott originally hoped to achieve. Now while that is exactly the sort of forced compromise which often results in great art (necessity being the mother of invention and all that - unlimited resources didn't make The Phantom Menace a better film than Star Wars, did it? Quite the opposite) there is still a lot of 'tell don't show' in Blade Runner. And I don't know about anyone else, but I would quite like to see attack ships on fire off the Shoulder of Orion; C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate; I want to see things you people wouldn't believe!

So yeah, a Blade Runner sequel would probably suck. Most sequels do, belated sequels especially. But you never know. It might not. It might even be good. So benefit of the doubt, eh guys?

(And even if 'Blade Runner 2' sucks the paint job off a star destroyer, it won't detract from the original one whit, so what's the problem? The Godfather Part III doesn't adversely affect Parts I and II in the slightest. Nor, if you are that way inclined, does Prometheus 'harm' Alien any more than some of its sequels did. These things are always easily-ignored if you so wish. Besides, Scott first mooted what became Prometheus more than 30 years ago, so I'll believe it when I see it!)


It's my number one film and has been for 28 years (I was 13 when I first saw it on Betamax , I have multiple versions and the wonderful book Future Noir. For a lot of that time, I've wanted a sequel for exactly the reasons you state but part of the film's allure is the mystery of the world, the things we hear of but don't see. I can't help thinking that to revisit it would demystify it and I don't agree that sequels can't harm the originals; is The Matrix not tainted ever-so-slightly by Revolutions? Is Highlander not almost ruined by the eco-waffle, aliens and Michael-Ironside-on-a-hoverboard toilet that is Highlander II?

Other than The Colour of Money, I'm struggling to think of a classic that's been revisited long after the event that's actually worked.

< Message edited by Lazarus munkey -- 27/6/2012 2:21:31 AM >


_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 47
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 1:56:25 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: djdarrenjames

I read your whole post and you are right on one important point and that is how fanboys go too far allowing disapointment to become hatred and personal attacks.


That's what baffles and disturbs me about the whole online thing.

quote:

Now, I would never take anything away from Lucas or Ridley for what they brought to cinema but it was a long time ago (pun not intended) but as far as Lucas is concerned, he fucked up royal with the prequels and then went and fucked up again with Indy.


It doesn't really matter how long ago it was. Not in the grand scheme of things. It's Star Wars, Alien and Blade Runner that Lucas and Scott will be remembered for (the same way Welles is remembered for Citizen Kane) not Howard the Duck or Legend. Besides, I like the Star Wars prequels. And so does my wee boy - the demographic they were actually aimed at, not us aging, disgruntled fanboys. He even loves the dreaded Jar Jar Binks. A lot of kids do.

(Lucas did fuck up Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, though - THE textbook example of the folly of belatedly returning to the Well of Souls once too often. And kinda spoiled that perfect, riding-off-into-the-sunset ending to The Last Crusade in the process. I still think ludicrous claims of "raped childhoods" were toe-curlingly embarrassing and bang out of order, though. Shit like that is why relatively normal people laugh at us fanboys. And rightly so.)

quote:

The guy has lost his touch and though he can claim some love and some immunity (with me anyway) for what he did, he has to take the flak for what he is doing. It's the nature of the beast. He fooled himself into thinking he could direct, and the prequels were the result. He CAN write, the original screenplays for the prequels kinda work so I feel the fuck up came during his control freakness during the actual making.


I think that is debatable. Although it's interesting you think the problem lies with his direction not his writing.

quote:

Interestingly, I blame Rick McCallum in equal measure for being a gutless 'yes-man'.


No argument here. Lucas would definitely benefit from having a producer who was prepared to say "No!" to him occasionally. But he would need King Kong's balls to do so.

quote:

When you create something so special and then go and fuck it all up three times, disapointment manifests itself in shit slinging. Passion does this to FANS in all areas; music, sports, TV, novels, have invested time, places in their hearts and minds and more importantly, money... lots and lots of money.


This is what worries me the most. Some fans invest way too much in these things. And I'm not talking about money. There are A LOT of Mark Chapmans, Annie Wilkes and Travis Bickles out there. I see them online every day. You must ask me to tell you the one about MY online stalker sometime. Long story short, there's still a nutter out there somewhere who sent Steven Moffat (yeah, the Doctor Who one) tweets telling him that I am - get this - "an Evil, Sadistic Genius"! (That's in my passport now and its how I introduce myself at parties!)

quote:

As a parting shot, I do believe that he DOES owe his fans to release the original cuts,


But he did. And they still moaned about it!

quote:

without his fans (and spielberg) he'd be nothing.


No, without his talent (yes, and 'control freakery') he'd be nothing. I don't think Lucas (or anyone else) "owes the fans" a damn thing. Personally I think I have got more than my money's worth out of Lucas over the years. What price a lifetime's entertainment? What price the sheer joy of sitting with my wee boy watching films I watched when I was a wee boy? There are some things money just can't buy - a sense of wonder, perhaps. And no amount of online bitching and moaning will ever take that away from me.

No-one made me watch the Star Wars prequels and no-one forces me to shell out for each successive re-release on disc which, like a schmuck, I always end up buying no matter how much I might grumble about it. Just not online. Just cos Lucas likes to milk his fans (there's no denying it) doesn't mean we have to act like cattle - MOO!

< Message edited by chris kilby -- 27/6/2012 1:56:06 PM >

(in reply to djdarrenjames)
Post #: 48
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 2:24:37 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey

It's my number one film and has been for 28 years (I was 13 when I first saw it on Betamax , I have multiple versions and the wonderful book Future Noir.


Top book. Arguably the best ever written about the making of a film. Probably cos its author happened to be there every step of the way, from first draft of the script to Final Cut. He was even at some of the test screenings in '82 which sealed the theatrical cut's fate. You don't even have to be a Blade Runner fan to enjoy it. If you are interested in filmmaking at all it is absolutely invaluable.

quote:

For a lot of that time, I've wanted a sequel for exactly the reasons you state but parts of the film's allure is the mystery of the world, the things we hear of but don't see. I can't help thinking that to revisit it would demystify it


Me too. Hence my misgivings about a belated sequel. I'd much rather see something set "in the same universe" which was true to the Dick-ensian spirit of Blade Runner than a direct sequel. (Which would involve what exactly? A 70-year old Rick Deckard still moping over Rachel who he has preserved in a glass stasis tube like Sleeping Beauty?)

There is something anally retentive and mindbogglingly pedantic about the fanboy mindset which wants absolutely everything explained in mindnumbing detail, that wants every 'i' dotted and every 't' crossed and nothing left to their (limited) imaginations. Indeed, it demands it! Hence the popularity of fanfic. And, it must be said, The Lord of the Rings - [HERESY ALERT!] terrific films, unreadable books!

I think the reason we still endlessly debate the meaning of Blade Runner (and 2001) is precisely because they are so ambiguous. It's the same reason Shakespeare's plays are still performed - is Hamlet a fruit loop? Who knows? I think that very ambiguity is what defines 'Art.' It's certainly what separates, say, The Godfather from Adam Sandler 'comedies' - an oxymoron if ever there was one.

quote:

and I don't agree that sequels can't harm the originals; is The Matrix not tainted ever-so-slightly by Revolutions?


No, cos I can still watch The Matrix in blissful isolation. The same way I can still watch Aliens and not think about what happens to Hicks and Newt at the start of Alien 3 (which I also kinda like - especially that longer 'Assembly Cut.') The same way I can still willingly suspend my disbelief no matter how much I know it's just actors reading from a script or how many Making Ofs... I watch. I'm good at compartmentalising that way. Like a serial killer!

quote:

Is Highlander not almost ruined by the eco-waffle, aliens and Michael-Ironside-on-a-hoverboard toilet that is Highlander II?


Again, no. (The Region 1 Director's Cut is well-worth seeking out, BTW. Still not a great film by any means, but undoubtedly a vastly improved one - re-edited top-to-bottom, they re-did the effects and even shot some new sequences which, incredibly, have been seamlessly edited in.)

quote:

Other than The Colour of Money, I'm struggling to think of a classic that's been revisited long after the event that's actually worked.


Return To Oz? Psycho II is good. And Psycho III is (unintentionally?) hilarious - "Not the guitar..."


< Message edited by chris kilby -- 27/6/2012 2:30:01 AM >

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 49
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 2:42:50 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey

Is Highlander not almost ruined by the eco-waffle, aliens and Michael-Ironside-on-a-hoverboard toilet that is Highlander II?


Again, no. (The Region 1 Director's Cut is well-worth seeking out, BTW. Still not a great film by any means, but undoubtedly a vastly improved one - re-edited top-to-bottom, they re-did the effects and even shot some new sequences which, incredibly, have been seamlessly edited in.)
I cannot foresee a version of the universe existing where I would put myself through that film again. The group of people I saw it with in the cinema all agreed that it spoiled the original by explaining so much.

quote:

quote:

Other than The Colour of Money, I'm struggling to think of a classic that's been revisited long after the event that's actually worked.
Return To Oz? Psycho II is good. And Psycho III is (unintentionally?) hilarious - "Not the guitar..."
Haven't seen 'Oz' or Psycho III but Psyho II is a good call, I remember being rather impressed when I saw that.

I suppose my point is that the odds seem to be stacked against a sequel being any good and I feel there's much more to lose than gain. I'll readily concede that my expectations for a Blade Runner sequel dropped dramatically after seeing Prometheus.

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 50
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 2:50:36 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 31/3/2010
I can understand that. But I still think it's way too early to reliably judge Prometheus. Good or bad, I think fans will still be talking about it for a long time to come. Which has got to be a sign of some sort of quality. A film which will be ripe for massive re-assessment in due course, I expect. But then I say that about the Star Wars prequels!

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 51
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 3:08:39 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

I can understand that. But I still think it's way too early to reliably judge Prometheus. Good or bad, I think fans will still be talking about it for a long time to come. Which has got to be a sign of some sort of quality. A film which will be ripe for massive re-assessment in due course, I expect. But then I say that about the Star Wars prequels!

I think it's being debated because of the quality of some of Scott's earlier work. I'd like a peek into an alternate universe where Prometheus exists exactly as it does here but was directed by Paul W.S. Anderson and see what the reaction was like.

I just don't see the depth that others are seeing in it. The main theme of Blade Runner is the nature of humanity and it handles with intelligence and ambiguity, as it should. In trying to deal with the origin of humanity, Prometheus took the seed of its idea from a 40 year old book that was largely rejected at the time so I don't get why it's being lent so much gravitas. It works neither on scientific (for the reason just mentioned) or religious grounds as it ignores the 'who creates the creator' question. It could be argued that it doesn't need to work on these grounds but, personally, I can't take a film seriously that professes to tackle the origin of humanity with neither a strong scientific or religious perspective.

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 52
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 10:14:28 AM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby


Blade Runner is one of my all-time favourites. Always has been, always will be - I too was there (in an empty cinema!) back in the day.



Blade Runner in an empty cinema...for the first time? Sounds like fucking heaven.

_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 53
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 10:26:46 AM   
gunstar


Posts: 962
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Star Lite Star Bright Trailer Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

I can understand that. But I still think it's way too early to reliably judge Prometheus. Good or bad, I think fans will still be talking about it for a long time to come. Which has got to be a sign of some sort of quality. A film which will be ripe for massive re-assessment in due course, I expect. But then I say that about the Star Wars prequels!

I think it's being debated because of the quality of some of Scott's earlier work. I'd like a peek into an alternate universe where Prometheus exists exactly as it does here but was directed by Paul W.S. Anderson and see what the reaction was like.

I just don't see the depth that others are seeing in it. The main theme of Blade Runner is the nature of humanity and it handles with intelligence and ambiguity, as it should. In trying to deal with the origin of humanity, Prometheus took the seed of its idea from a 40 year old book that was largely rejected at the time so I don't get why it's being lent so much gravitas. It works neither on scientific (for the reason just mentioned) or religious grounds as it ignores the 'who creates the creator' question. It could be argued that it doesn't need to work on these grounds but, personally, I can't take a film seriously that professes to tackle the origin of humanity with neither a strong scientific or religious perspective.


Completely agree with this. Prometheus is a sub-standard film, lacking in coherent structure, characterisation or a decent script.I'm with Lazarus with the idea that any other director would have been mauled for making the same mess, but in this case these errors seemed to be replaced by some quasi-deep ramblings as to 'what the movie is about'. In my opinion, it reallly doesn't justify that type of subtextual reading and I find it to be a really strange way to deal with the disappointment of what, in my case at least, is obviously a very weak piece of work.  



_____________________________

'We can take these Deadites! We can take them.....with science."

"We'll get 'em. We'll throw the book at them. Assault and kidnapping. Assault with a gun and a bourbon and a sports car."

"Falcon! Grab my ankles!"

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 54
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 11:36:56 AM   
shatnerhamster

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 19/3/2007
I thoroughly enjoyed Prometheus, and would be very eager to see sequels, so I'm not going to bash Ridley.

George Lucas, on the other hand - as long as he continues to refuse to release the original Star Wars trilogy in their proper versions, he richly deserves all the abuse he's currently getting.

(in reply to gunstar)
Post #: 55
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 12:13:48 PM   
clownfoot


Posts: 7914
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: The ickle town of Fuck, Austria

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey

Blade Runner 2.



LEAVE BLADE RUNNER. ALONE!!


Yeah, it'll probably be rubbish. Most belated sequels are. And yet... And yet... Blade Runner was always so compromised from the start, long before anxious financiers (and idiot preview audiences) forced that "Irving the Explainer" voice over and tacked-on happy ending to its original theatrical release.

Blade Runner lost a lot of expensive, hard-to-realise setpieces during its equally tortuous pre-production (Deckard's arrival in LA by train; Batty and co's escape from the off-world colonies, etc) which maybe Scott would still like to realise now effects technology has caught up with his imagination and he has the clout and resources to achieve them.

While I'm not sure about a direct sequel to Blade Runner, I for one would dearly love to see more of that world and maybe a further exploration of its rich, er, Dickish themes of memory, identity and humanity - there are plenty of unfilmed Philip K Dick novels along similar lines which could serve as the basis of a Blade Runner sequel. (The film of Minority Report was originally going to be Total Recall 2 remember!)

Blade Runner is one of my all-time favourites. Always has been, always will be - I too was there (in an empty cinema!) back in the day. But there is no denying it remains a flawed, hopelessly compromised film (even in its 'Final Cut' form) and far from what Scott originally hoped to achieve. Now while that is exactly the sort of forced compromise which often results in great art (necessity being the mother of invention and all that - unlimited resources didn't make The Phantom Menace a better film than Star Wars, did it? Quite the opposite) there is still a lot of 'tell don't show' in Blade Runner. And I don't know about anyone else, but I would quite like to see attack ships on fire off the Shoulder of Orion; C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate; I want to see things you people wouldn't believe!

So yeah, a Blade Runner sequel would probably suck. Most sequels do, belated sequels especially. But you never know. It might not. It might even be good. So benefit of the doubt, eh guys?

(And even if 'Blade Runner 2' sucks the paint job off a star destroyer, it won't detract from the original one whit, so what's the problem? The Godfather Part III doesn't adversely affect Parts I and II in the slightest. Nor, if you are that way inclined, does Prometheus 'harm' Alien any more than some of its sequels did. These things are always easily-ignored if you so wish. Besides, Scott first mooted what became Prometheus more than 30 years ago, so I'll believe it when I see it!)



Does it really need a sequel when the Blade Runner PC game of the late nineties was beyond perfect and captured much of the ethos of the original flick? (I do feel sorry for those that never had the opportunity to play the game).

_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

http://www.thepixelempire.net/index.html
http://clownfootsinversemidas.blogspot.com/

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 56
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 12:35:59 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
quote:

ORIGINAL: clownfoot
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey

Blade Runner 2.



LEAVE BLADE RUNNER. ALONE!!


Yeah, it'll probably be rubbish. Most belated sequels are. And yet... And yet... Blade Runner was always so compromised from the start, long before anxious financiers (and idiot preview audiences) forced that "Irving the Explainer" voice over and tacked-on happy ending to its original theatrical release.

Blade Runner lost a lot of expensive, hard-to-realise setpieces during its equally tortuous pre-production (Deckard's arrival in LA by train; Batty and co's escape from the off-world colonies, etc) which maybe Scott would still like to realise now effects technology has caught up with his imagination and he has the clout and resources to achieve them.

While I'm not sure about a direct sequel to Blade Runner, I for one would dearly love to see more of that world and maybe a further exploration of its rich, er, Dickish themes of memory, identity and humanity - there are plenty of unfilmed Philip K Dick novels along similar lines which could serve as the basis of a Blade Runner sequel. (The film of Minority Report was originally going to be Total Recall 2 remember!)

Blade Runner is one of my all-time favourites. Always has been, always will be - I too was there (in an empty cinema!) back in the day. But there is no denying it remains a flawed, hopelessly compromised film (even in its 'Final Cut' form) and far from what Scott originally hoped to achieve. Now while that is exactly the sort of forced compromise which often results in great art (necessity being the mother of invention and all that - unlimited resources didn't make The Phantom Menace a better film than Star Wars, did it? Quite the opposite) there is still a lot of 'tell don't show' in Blade Runner. And I don't know about anyone else, but I would quite like to see attack ships on fire off the Shoulder of Orion; C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate; I want to see things you people wouldn't believe!

So yeah, a Blade Runner sequel would probably suck. Most sequels do, belated sequels especially. But you never know. It might not. It might even be good. So benefit of the doubt, eh guys?

(And even if 'Blade Runner 2' sucks the paint job off a star destroyer, it won't detract from the original one whit, so what's the problem? The Godfather Part III doesn't adversely affect Parts I and II in the slightest. Nor, if you are that way inclined, does Prometheus 'harm' Alien any more than some of its sequels did. These things are always easily-ignored if you so wish. Besides, Scott first mooted what became Prometheus more than 30 years ago, so I'll believe it when I see it!)



Does it really need a sequel when the Blade Runner PC game of the late nineties was beyond perfect and captured much of the ethos of the original flick? (I do feel sorry for those that never had the opportunity to play the game).


Before I saw Prometheus, I was quietly confident and getting quite excited about the prospect of a Blade Runner sequel/prequel/follow-up (whatever the hell it's gonna be), especially considering Hampton Fancher's involvement. But then I saw Prometheus...

I'm still intrigued, though, and I think it could be good - I blame a lot of Prometheus' (many) short comings on the story and the script, which was nowt to do with Ridders of course, and we know that when it comes to Ridley Scott, a good story and good script are at least 50% of his good films (I know that goes for most films, but few other directors' films are affected so badly when the script and story aren't that good). The trouble is he will sign up to pretty much any basic premise that interests him (I believe he signed up to most of the films he's made in the last decade or so based on premise alone and before any proper script was in place) and doesn't tend to get too involved with developing the story, even if it is sub-par. But Fancher's a good writer and he hasn't done so much work that the years have burnt him out. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed, and hoping.

But whatever happens with it and whether it'll be any good or not, I just hope that he doesn't cast Russell Crowe.

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to clownfoot)
Post #: 57
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 12:40:05 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4204
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: shatnerhamster

George Lucas, on the other hand - as long as he continues to refuse to release the original Star Wars trilogy in their proper versions, he richly deserves all the abuse he's currently getting.


Utter horseshit. Besides, they were released on DVD.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to shatnerhamster)
Post #: 58
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 12:45:30 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown
Utter horseshit. Besides, they were released on DVD.


To be fair, it was only because he was harangued and petitioned by the fans to do it. If he had his way, they would never have seen the light of day again.

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 59
RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! - 27/6/2012 2:25:40 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

I can understand that. But I still think it's way too early to reliably judge Prometheus. Good or bad, I think fans will still be talking about it for a long time to come. Which has got to be a sign of some sort of quality. A film which will be ripe for massive re-assessment in due course, I expect. But then I say that about the Star Wars prequels!

I think it's being debated because of the quality of some of Scott's earlier work. I'd like a peek into an alternate universe where Prometheus exists exactly as it does here but was directed by Paul W.S. Anderson and see what the reaction was like.


That was Alien Vs Predator wasn't it? Hello? Is this thing on...?

quote:

I just don't see the depth that others are seeing in it. The main theme of Blade Runner is the nature of humanity and it handles with intelligence and ambiguity, as it should. In trying to deal with the origin of humanity, Prometheus took the seed of its idea from a 40 year old book that was largely rejected at the time so I don't get why it's being lent so much gravitas. It works neither on scientific (for the reason just mentioned) or religious grounds as it ignores the 'who creates the creator' question. It could be argued that it doesn't need to work on these grounds but, personally, I can't take a film seriously that professes to tackle the origin of humanity with neither a strong scientific or religious perspective.


Oh there are definitely depths and layers there. It's just there are too damn many of them and they're awful muddled and confused where Alien was elegant and simple. Take the film's title. It's not called Prometheus for nothing. Parallels with the Prometheus creation myth abound. It took me a couple of viewings, but that monk-like Engineer chap at the start basically IS Prometheus, ritualistically sacrificing himself with stolen genetic "fire" to create new life on what may or may not be ancient Earth. (I also think this slightly baffling prologue suggests some kind of conflict between benign hippy Engineers and their more warlike brethren. Either that or the hippies turned into intergalactic space bastards over time. But that's another matter.)

And you're right about Erich Von Daniken. Chariots of the Gods? was bollocks 40 years ago and its long-since discredited bollocks now. Humanity couldn't have evolved into convicted fraudster and court-diagnosed criminal psychopath (fact) Erich Von Daniken without alien interference? Do me a favour! I think it's significant that Chariots of the Gods? was originally published in 1969. Von Daniken was probably just cashing in on the success of 2001. Either that or he was smoking some really good shit!

But Chariots of the Gods? notwithstanding (and relying so heavily on a hippie-era set text does make this futuristic film seem curiously old-fashioned) my biggest problem with Prometheus (apart from its rather thuddingly Creationist and Scientology echoes which are about as welcome in a science fiction film as a fart in a spacesuit) is a common one: arrogantly assuming a sequel will be inevitable, it deliberately leaves everything hanging at the (maddeningly inconclusive) "end" when it could have been more satisfying while still leaving room for a sequel if the box office returns warranted one.

It is a bit much after more than 30 years to promise answers to questions which, truth be told, were better left unanswered anyway only to turn round and say, "Well, maybe in the sequel..." GAH!

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: LEAVE. GEORGE AND RIDLEY. ALONE!!! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.188