Ridley Scott to Direct New Blade Runner

[Temis the Vorta]

Ridley and Tony Scott are busy guys.

This caught my eye:

There are also adapatations planned on Philip K. Dick's The Man In The High Castle [on TV]...

Wow, they're actually going to tackle that hot potato, huh? I've been wondering if anyone would ever try.

 

[Orac]

I'll be looking forwarde to this movie! I hope Scott can do as good a job as Lucas did with his Star Wars prequels!

 

[RAMA]

Its time for a Last Starfighter remake/sequel!

Anyway...this thread revived my distress at having picked HD-DVD as the winner in the high capacity disc wars, and my unplayable HD-DVD copy of the 5-disc BR is sitting there after the HD-DVD player broke. I was inspired to buy the Bluray 5-disc copy...now I can feel better that my favorite movie of all time will be sitting on the shelf soon.

 

[RAMA]

I'll be looking forwarde to this movie! I hope Scott can do as good a job as Lucas did with his Star Wars prequels!

Ridley has an almost unblemshied record of moviemaking since 1982, with many recent successes...the same cannot be said for Lucas.

 

[Corran Horn]

Its time for a Last Starfighter remake/sequel!

"The Next Starfighter"...Alex Rogen's kid has grown up and is a hot shot Starfighter...the Xur goes to take out Earth as revenge for the first film...the kid is culturally more Rylan than Human and doesn't really give a damn, but goes anyway...he meets up with a hottie girl from Earth...

 

[Orac]

I'll be looking forwarde to this movie! I hope Scott can do as good a job as Lucas did with his Star Wars prequels!

Ridley has an almost unblemshied record of moviemaking since 1982, with many recent successes...the same cannot be said for Lucas.

That's debatable. Ridley Scott isn't the same person he was in 1981, he won't be able to make the same type of film any more, the new film will be different in tone just as the Star Wars prequels were different in tone to the original trilogy.

 

[Mr_Homn]

Why can't hollywood make anything new anymore?

 

[Maurice]

Why can't hollywood make anything new anymore?

AS I've said before, people complaining that Hollywood should stop remaking movies is a time-worn concept and nothing new.

• Ben Hur (1907 film), a one-reel silent version
• Ben-Hur (1925 film), an MGM silent film starring Ramon Novarro
• Ben-Hur (1959 film), an MGM sound film starring Charlton Heston that won 11 Academy Awards

• Show Boat (1929 film), adapted by Charles Kenyon and directed by Harry A. Pollard
• Show Boat (1936 film), adapted by Oscar Hammerstein II and directed by James Whale
• Show Boat (1951 film), adapted by John Lee Mahin and directed by George Sidney

• The Maltese Falcon (1931 film), the first version, pre-Code production starring Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels
• Satan Met a Lady (1936 film)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan_Met_a_Lady, a light-comedy adaptation starring Bette Davis and Warren William, with Sam Spade becoming "Ted Shane".
• The Maltese Falcon (1941 film), starring Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Peter Lorre, and Sydney Greenstreet.

Heck, Miller's Crossing (1990) is effectively a reimagining of "The Glass Key" (1942).

 

[Mr_Homn]

Remakes are fine, but you are ignoring that they have become far more common in the last decade.

It's come to the point where remakes and reboots and sequels outnumber original stories, as far as big budget movies go.

I'll answer my own question, "Why can't hollywood make anything new anymore?"

Well, the truth is, they can (I think), but it's far safer not to. Studios know that brand recognition is what sells. With the increase in the amount of choices as to where and how we get our entertainment, it's become far safer to sell something that everyone recognizes from the past, when everyone had less choices as to what to watch. That's why this happens more and more over time.

 

[Maurice]

You didn't say "big budget movies". You can't say I'm ignoring something when you it wasn't part of the statement to which I was responding.

 

[Mr_Homn]

You didn't say "big budget movies". You can't say I'm ignoring something when you it wasn't part of the statement to which I was responding.

My bad, I usually equate "hollywood" with "big budget", although I know they aren't necessarily one and the same.

Most independent or low budget films come from outside of what is known as "hollywood"

 

[Deckerd]

Some of the biggest budget films of recent times have been adaptations of beloved book series and have never been filmed before.

 

[Mr_Homn]

Some of the biggest budget films of recent times have been adaptations of beloved book series and have never been filmed before.

Keyword being some. As in a few. Mostly Harry Potter. Still not an original intellectual property, though, since it's adapted from a book.

Fact: The majority of big budget films in the last decade have been remakes, reboots, re-imaginings, prequels, or sequels. This is the safest way of making new big budget movies, financially speaking.

 

[Deckerd]

Lord of the Rings? His Dark Materials? Lion, Witch & Wardrobe?

 

[Mr_Homn]

Lord of the Rings? His Dark Materials? Lion, Witch & Wardrobe?

Yep, those too, but mostly Harry Potter. And still not original intellectual properties as you know.

How about

Clash of the Titans? Nightmare on Elm Street? Friday the 13th? Get Smart? Alice and Wonderland? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Planet of the Apes? Rise of the Planet of the apes? A-Team? Starsky and Hutch? The Dukes of Hazard? Poseidon? Scooby Doo? Bewitched? Fat Albert? The Shaggy Dog? Alvin and the Chipmunks? Fantastic Four? Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer? Gi Joe? Amityville Horror? Assault on Precinct 13? Halloween? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Dawn of the Dead? Death Race? Speed Racer? Rollerball? The Next Karate Kid? Karate Kid? Piranha? The Wicker Man? Robin Hood? Robin Hood again? Wolfman? Sherlock Holmes? The Stepfather? The Hills have Eyes? When a Stranger Calls? Land of the Lost? House of Wax? Ocean's 11? Ocean's 12? War of the Worlds? The Day the Earth Stood Still? Curious George? Psycho? The Pink Panther? The Stepford Wives? I am Legend? The Longest Yard? Batman Begins? Superman Returns? Three Spidermans? TMNT? The Hulk? The Hulk Remake a few years later? Miami Vice? Charlotte's Web? The Heartbreak Kid? King Kong? Hairspray? The Omen? Clerks II? Basic Instinct 2? Tron Legacy? Wallstreet 2? Indiana Jones 4? Die hard 4? X-files 2? Rocky Balboa? Star Trek? Star Wars Prequel Trilogy? Aliens Vs. Predator? Rambo? Another reboot of Spiderman? X-men First Class? Conan the Barbarian? And now another Blade Runner. MORE TO COME!

By no means a comprehensive list, but you get the idea. It's also not including most of the movies coming out soon, as I got most of my list from this video http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09/ and it's a few years old.

 

[Kegg]

^
Narnia and Middle-Earth have both been adapted before, Narnia on TV (I watched those versions quite a bit as a kid) and Middle-Earth as an animated film.

And now I want to read The Yiddish Policeman's Union.

As well you should, damn good book. Imaginative alternate history, and speaking of those:

Ridley and Tony Scott are busy guys.

This caught my eye:

There are also adapatations planned on Philip K. Dick's The Man In The High Castle [on TV]...

Wow, they're actually going to tackle that hot potato, huh? I've been wondering if anyone would ever try.

I hope it's not too long a miniseries. The crux of the problem with a lot of Philip K. Dick adaptions is they're usually adapting material too short for the running time - slapping together short stories into movies, which need a few car chases or explosions or idiotic multiple plot twists to keep the running length appropriately cinematic.

Adapting Dick's novels is wiser because they are by definition longer, but they're not exactly epic tomes - at a random stab I'd say something like four episodes would be more than enough for The Man in the High Castle, and maybe less.

Fact: The majority of big budget films in the last decade have been remakes, reboots, re-imaginings, prequels, or sequels. This is the safest way of making new big budget movies, financially speaking.

Fact: The majority of big budget films in Hollywood history have been geared towards whatever was considered the safest way to budget them. Ben-Hur has been cited, so consider the heydey of the Biblical films, where numerous movies were based... often on books and plays about Biblical topics (like Ben-Hur, but also The Rope, Quo Vadis), some of which had been made into films before.

Hollywood's so relentlessly commercial to the point it's been a cliche to knock it decades anyone posting here was born (except for those of you who were birthed in the 1920s, possibly).

 

[Mr_Homn]

Fact: The majority of big budget films in the last decade have been remakes, reboots, re-imaginings, prequels, or sequels. This is the safest way of making new big budget movies, financially speaking.

Fact: The majority of big budget films in Hollywood history have been geared towards whatever was considered the safest way to budget them. Ben-Hur has been cited, so consider the heydey of the Biblical films, where numerous movies were based... often on books and plays about Biblical topics (like Ben-Hur, but also The Rope, Quo Vadis), some of which had been made into films before.

Hollywood's so relentlessly commercial to the point it's been a cliche to knock it decades anyone posting here was born (except for those of you who were birthed in the 1920s, possibly).

For sure. As you know, what has been considered "safe" financially has changed a lot. It has changed for the worse, IMO. There was a time where you could look forward to the summer movie season without nearly every single movie being a re-hash of a movie that has already been done. But as you correctly said, such complaints are to an extent, cliche. Doesn't mean I can't still feel that way.

 

[Deckerd]

The vast majority of them aren't big budget. What does original intellectual property have to do with your argument? Your complaint was that big budget films were repeats and I was pointing out that that's not true. I'm not getting into a list fight with you because it's pointless. Perhaps someone else will, though.

I didn't realise we were including television (Kegg).

 

[Mr_Homn]

The vast majority of them aren't big budget.

Yes they are.

What does original intellectual property have to do with your argument?

It's not essential to it. More of a sidenote. Lack of creativity.

Your complaint was that big budget films were repeats and I was pointing out that that's not true.

No, my complaint wasn't that "Big budget films are repeats". That's an oversimplification of what I typed. Nothing you said pointed out what I said was untrue.

I'm not getting into a list fight with you because it's pointless.

Agreed, because nothing I said is worth fighting over, since nothing I said was incorrect. You were the one who started listing movies, however. I only responded in kind.

 

[Gov Kodos]

^
Narnia and Middle-Earth have both been adapted before, Narnia on TV (I watched those versions quite a bit as a kid) and Middle-Earth as an animated film.

And now I want to read The Yiddish Policeman's Union.

As well you should, damn good book. Imaginative alternate history, and speaking of those:

Ridley and Tony Scott are busy guys.

This caught my eye:

Wow, they're actually going to tackle that hot potato, huh? I've been wondering if anyone would ever try.

I hope it's not too long a miniseries. The crux of the problem with a lot of Philip K. Dick adaptions is they're usually adapting material too short for the running time - slapping together short stories into movies, which need a few car chases or explosions or idiotic multiple plot twists to keep the running length appropriately cinematic.

Adapting Dick's novels is wiser because they are by definition longer, but they're not exactly epic tomes - at a random stab I'd say something like four episodes would be more than enough for The Man in the High Castle, and maybe less.

Fact: The majority of big budget films in the last decade have been remakes, reboots, re-imaginings, prequels, or sequels. This is the safest way of making new big budget movies, financially speaking.

Fact: The majority of big budget films in Hollywood history have been geared towards whatever was considered the safest way to budget them. Ben-Hur has been cited, so consider the heydey of the Biblical films, where numerous movies were based... often on books and plays about Biblical topics (like Ben-Hur, but also The Rope, Quo Vadis), some of which had been made into films before.

Hollywood's so relentlessly commercial to the point it's been a cliche to knock it decades anyone posting here was born (except for those of you who were birthed in the 1920s, possibly).

I've no doubt that before film theaters were as ready to redress or remake successful works as any Hollywood production company.