• Welcome To LPSG
    Welcome to LPSG.com. If you are here because you are looking for the most amazing open-minded fun-spirited sexy adult community then you have found the right place. We also happen to have some of the sexiest members you'll ever meet. Signup below and come join us.


'Blade Runner remake

B_Marius567

Banned
Joined
May 30, 2004
Posts
1,915
Reaction score
21
Points
258
why are thay doing a remake of Blade Runner? it was one of the best 80s movies out there.

thay should remake THAY LIVE its about the rich having all the money and poor people that are trying to get by.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Posts
890
Reaction score
198
Points
63
are you talking about this? or is there other info I don't know about?

Blade Runner 60: Director's Cut (2011)
This is a the full cut of a remake of Blade Runner originally created for Empire Magazine's Done in Sixty Seconds competition. Blade Runner 60 moves the film's action to London, and takes inspiration from the novel 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.' The Empire Magazine cut was 60 seconds long - this is around 5 minutes.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Posts
890
Reaction score
198
Points
63
hmmm, if it is a prequel or sequel, I might be excited. If it is a remake, I will be highly annoyed.
 

MickeyLee

Staff member
Moderator
Gold Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
25,916
Reaction score
43,550
Points
293
Location
neverhood
NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!

stop remaking great movies :rant:
seriously, is like watching movie studios go ass to mouth on your grandmother's corpse.


no prequels, no sequels, no films set in Blade-verse.
NO!! you fucking bastards, NO!!!
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,424
Reaction score
92
Points
133
NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!

stop remaking great movies :rant:
seriously, is like watching movie studios go ass to mouth on your grandmother's corpse.


no prequels, no sequels, no films set in Blade-verse.
NO!! you fucking bastards, NO!!!



I'm a massive Blade Runner fan myself, I don't know how I would feel about prequels or sequels, but I know there would be absolutely no point remaking what was artistically a perfect movie.
 

Pendlum

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Posts
2,096
Reaction score
25
Points
283
HAN SHOT FIRST! >:O

Oh wait sorry wrong thing..
 

D_Hey Sailor

Banned
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Posts
338
Reaction score
5
Points
53
Probly cuz Harrison Ford decided to be a giant Wookie and did a shite job with his overdubs.:rofl:
 

erratic

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
4,297
Reaction score
448
Points
228
I guess he's gotten a taste for revisiting his past, what with Prometheus and all.

Listen, I agree that people are too gung-ho to revisit classics (not that that's a new thing...check out 2010 and the other other King Kong), but there's nothing in Ridley Scott's repertoire to suggest he's capable of some sort of Episode I/Alien 3 level atrocity - as long as the studio leaves the film alone (Kingdom of Heaven) and he's not taking too many hallucinogens (Legend...at least, I assume hallucinogens were involved in the making of that movie).

Anyway, this'll be a tough movie to knock out of the park, as it were. With the original Scott had the fortune of it developing a following from nothing - and that "under-appreciated film of the year" cachet. Now he's trying to follow up a classic with a rabid fan base. That's tough.
 

D_Hey Sailor

Banned
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Posts
338
Reaction score
5
Points
53
As someone who analyzed the original film for a senior university paper... what is so special about the original flick anyhow? The visuals aren't stunning. The acting is stiff. The audio sucks. Heck, besides Rutger Hauer, the casting wasn't even all that great.

It is the story that contains the magic!

Go read the inspiring novel the film was based on by Philip K. Dick... that will quickly diminish your feelings of sacrilege.
 
Joined
May 16, 2011
Posts
350
Reaction score
2
Points
51
NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!

stop remaking great movies :rant:
seriously, is like watching movie studios go ass to mouth on your grandmother's corpse.


no prequels, no sequels, no films set in Blade-verse.
NO!! you fucking bastards, NO!!!

lmfao and Ms MickeyLee for the unexpected laugh/choke combo. Yup...that cleared my sinuses right up. (wipes eyes)
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,424
Reaction score
92
Points
133
Go read the inspiring novel the film was based on by Philip K. Dick... that will quickly diminish your feelings of sacrilege.



I thought the book was prolix and pretentious meself, that's why I thought the film was so good, it took the elements of what I felt was a mediocre novel and made them into something more than their sum.
 

ToXo

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Posts
105
Reaction score
876
Points
463
Location
Melbourne (Victoria, Australia)
The original had horrible audio... jus sayin'

I really hope you're not talking about the soundtrack...

Vangelis is a terrific composer, and a musical genius imo... and this was one of his classic works...

which is why if this remake rumor or whatever, is true... they have got a big challenge if they expect to at least equal the original masterpiece.
 

mephistopheles

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Posts
1,292
Reaction score
133
Points
208
Location
Hell
Website
www.nomoreroominhell.com
I'll see if I can find the article, but there will be no remakes made.

They just brought Ridley Scott back on board.

It will not have Deckard in it.

The Link

"While the project will NOT be a remake, there’s still no official yet on whether it’ll be a prequel, sequel, or be merely “related” to Scott’s original 1982 film the same way that his upcoming Prometheus is connected to Alien (essentially, a spinoff)."

Posted today!
 
Last edited:

MickeyLee

Staff member
Moderator
Gold Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
25,916
Reaction score
43,550
Points
293
Location
neverhood
now i have to spend the next hour calling off the assassins and trying to get my deposit refunded.

still, is good news :biggrin:
 

Intrigue

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Posts
1,423
Reaction score
9
Points
73
Location
Florida
Thank the universe! Without Ridley I would've set the whole fucking thing on fire. Truf!!
 

Intrigue

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Posts
1,423
Reaction score
9
Points
73
Location
Florida
As someone who analyzed the original film for a senior university paper... what is so special about the original flick anyhow? The visuals aren't stunning. The acting is stiff. The audio sucks. Heck, besides Rutger Hauer, the casting wasn't even all that great.

It is the story that contains the magic!

Go read the inspiring novel the film was based on by Philip K. Dick... that will quickly diminish your feelings of sacrilege.


Rutger is the man! Have you seen Lady Hawk?! A serious fav film from him imo. And I haven't read the novel, but I think I will now. =)
 

mephistopheles

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Posts
1,292
Reaction score
133
Points
208
Location
Hell
Website
www.nomoreroominhell.com
As someone who analyzed the original film for a senior university paper... what is so special about the original flick anyhow? The visuals aren't stunning. The acting is stiff. The audio sucks. Heck, besides Rutger Hauer, the casting wasn't even all that great.

It is the story that contains the magic!

Go read the inspiring novel the film was based on by Philip K. Dick... that will quickly diminish your feelings of sacrilege.

When I was young I used to go ove to my grandmas house and we watched Blade Runner, The Addams Family, Robocop and all kinds'a movies. Aside from the fact that I love Harrison Ford's acting and Ridley Scott's direction, this movie probably holds more nostalgic value than any other movie I have ever seen in my entire.

I love the original novel, but for me the magic is truly with the film.
When I watch this movie I feel like my grandmother is there with me.

If I would I would thank Mr. Ford and Mr. Scott for this great gift!
:biggrin1:
 

SilverTrain

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,608
Reaction score
1,191
Points
258
Location
USA
As someone who analyzed the original film for a senior university paper... what is so special about the original flick anyhow? The visuals aren't stunning. The acting is stiff. The audio sucks. Heck, besides Rutger Hauer, the casting wasn't even all that great.

It is the story that contains the magic!

Go read the inspiring novel the film was based on by Philip K. Dick... that will quickly diminish your feelings of sacrilege.

I'd beg to differ re the visuals. I find the film to be eye candy of a high order. Tastes differ, or course. I'm often willing to overlook a film's flaws if it's prettily designed and shot. In this case, I think it's a triumph on many levels. I haven't seen it in awhile, so I shall have to go back and listen to the audio on my blu-ray 7.1 system. Tinny, muffled, or muted audio does suck, especially with a production such as this one. Frankly, I was surprised to read your comment. But I trust the source. :smile: It's a nice excuse to whip it out again.......:wink:

P.S. I haven't read the Dick novella, but I've read some of his other stuff and I've thoroughly enjoyed it all.
 

mephistopheles

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Posts
1,292
Reaction score
133
Points
208
Location
Hell
Website
www.nomoreroominhell.com
I'd beg to differ re the visuals. I find the film to be eye candy of a high order. Tastes differ, or course. I'm often willing to overlook a film's flaws if it's prettily designed and shot. In this case, I think it's a triumph on many levels. I haven't seen it in awhile, so I shall have to go back and listen to the audio on my blu-ray 7.1 system. Tinny, muffled, or muted audio does suck, especially with a production such as this one. Frankly, I was surprised to read your comment. But I trust the source. :smile: It's a nice excuse to whip it out again.......:wink:

P.S. I haven't read the Dick novella, but I've read some of his other stuff and I've thoroughly enjoyed it all.

I don't complain about the quality of the film or it's audio, on my bluray it's pristine and crisp. I find the direction in this film is intense, there is never a boring shot and there is a lot to be seen.

Film vs. Novella - I don't think it's that easy to just say the book is better, I love the book but films and pages shouldn't really be compared. The novella is the authors universe and the film is the directors. The fact that he is making another film in the same universe is proof of that.

Lets not forget this was a low budget movie, and it tanked at the box office. I would guess the budget was more than 28 mill, but it wasn't; and it only raked in just over 6 mill at the box office, and didn't even break even in '82, grossing only 27 mill.

As for the voice over; the producers and exec producers decided the average viewer would be confused and not able to follow the film:

"(A)n extensive voice-over was added to help people relate to Harrison Ford's character and make following the plot easier. [A]fter a draft by novelist-screenwriter Darryl Ponicsan was discarded, a TV veteran named Roland Kibbee got the job. As finally written, the voice-over met with universal scorn from the filmmakers, mostly for what Scott characterized as its 'Irving the Explainer' quality [...] It sounded so tinny and ersatz that, in a curious bit of film folklore, many members of the team believe to this day that Harrison Ford, consciously or not, did an uninspired reading of it in the hopes it wouldn't be used. And when co-writers Fancher and Peoples, now friends, saw it together, they were so afraid the other had written it that they refrained from any negative comments until months later." (Los Angeles Times, 13 September, 1992)

There's a 1992 version of the film(my fav version) where there is no voice over, and the ending is not a happy hollywood one.
 
Last edited:

D_Hey Sailor

Banned
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Posts
338
Reaction score
5
Points
53
Ok ok ok, I didn't mean to set off the nerd alarms with my comment. :27:

I guess what I should have said was, if you compared Blade Runner to a much older movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968!!!) and had no knowledge of their production dates, you would get it dead wrong when trying to label which was newer.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Posts
890
Reaction score
198
Points
63
Ok ok ok, I didn't mean to set off the nerd alarms with my comment. :27:

I guess what I should have said was, if you compared Blade Runner to a much older movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968!!!) and had no knowledge of their production dates, you would get it dead wrong when trying to label which was newer.

no way!
 

SilverTrain

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,608
Reaction score
1,191
Points
258
Location
USA
Ok ok ok, I didn't mean to set off the nerd alarms with my comment. :27:

I guess what I should have said was, if you compared Blade Runner to a much older movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968!!!) and had no knowledge of their production dates, you would get it dead wrong when trying to label which was newer.


Yes way.

However, MsMoxie has chosen perhaps the one "older" film that is universally regarded as, to this day, having one of the most brilliant "looks" of any and all films ever shot. Being that Stanley Kubrick (he of the "perfect shot" legend) lovingly constructed and shot it in 70MM (much of it in the incredibly glorious Todd-AO format)--pretty much the last time (save Baraka) that any filmmaker has ever lavished so much effort and technology into getting "the perfect image"--her comparison is a bit.........clever.

I'll stand by the notion that Blade Runner is exceedingly, wonderfully beautiful to look at. And I'll of course acknowledge that 2001 is otherworldly pretty.
 

D_Hey Sailor

Banned
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Posts
338
Reaction score
5
Points
53
I like to bias things my way :moon:

(other nifty bit about 2K1 is that it has a lot of silence... less audio, less to fault :puppy_dog_eyes:)

*cues monolith soundtrack*
 

CUBE

Gold Member
Joined
May 28, 2005
Posts
8,381
Reaction score
6,771
Points
333
Location
The OC
I would love to see this remade. It was the story (for me) that was cool. I thought it technically had a lot of problems and awful audio. I could see it being redone. I ususally say don't touch a classic but in this case I think it could work.