Possible Blade Runner 2 viral ad in Superman previews?

[generals3]

Well i'm not sure what to think, i thought blade runner was extremely boring. I watched it because i read a lot of good hype about it but than i realized that it was all just typical "let's over-hype this extremely boring movie "because" " stuff. It's like Amélie, literally fell asleep during that movie (and i've seen lots of boring movies but that never happened).

So on one hand i don't really care but on the other hand it can't really get any worse now can it?

 

[Madman123456]

Bladerunner definately hasn't aged well. The big noisy dystopian mega city came from there but nowadays we've seen plenty of those, bigger, gloomier, noisier and more dystopian. Or less dystopian, or not dystopian at all; we have seen many many "future cities" of many varieties and if you watch bladerunner now, it just blends in with all the other scifi places.

Many movies have taken things from bladerunner besides the dystopian cityscape and if you watch bladerunner now you'll have seen about every single scene done with more refinement, more experience and most probably flashier effects.

"Bladerunner" doesn't hold up very well. It's a nice history lesson though, imagine seeing the aforementioned city having never seen something like that before. It would be like the first time you saw cg dinosaurs in "Jurassic park". Which start to look rather outdated in a few scenes here and there.
But when i first saw the movies i couldn't tear my eyes off them.



And while we're making sequels to age old movies: Why not make sequels to old Charlie Chaplin movies?

 

[Thaluikhain]

And while we're making sequels to age old movies: Why not make sequels to old Charlie Chaplin movies?

Oh...for a modern version of "The Great Dictator", where he accidentally gets blackface on and people mistake him for Obama...

 

[Dangit2019]

So, I just got back from watching Superman with a friend, and during the previews for upcoming films, I noticed a strange advertisement. I didn't catch the whole thing, so I'm hoping someone else out there can clear it up for me.

There were two announcements to switch off cellphones, one being an ad for Despicable Me 2...
but the second announcement had a flash of a unicorn, a message to let your cellphone dream while the movie is playing, and advice to text/ search for a 4 or 5 digit number after the film.

I don't recall the number they flashed on-screen, and a search online isn't showing me any news. Did anyone else catch this announcement? Showing an image of a unicorn while talking about letting a machine dream can't just be a coincidence, can it?

No, that's a gimmicky thing that some theaters do. When the movie ends, you get a cute little text message telling you basic details about yourself. For example, if you, say, like Metallica, it'll come back saying "I dreamed I was at a Metallica concert, etc." It's like the piss poor version of the Psycho Mantis boss.

No Blade Runner, guys, just gimmicky shit.

 

[Arpegus]

Yeah, I figured out the thing with Sprint, so I guess it was a false alarm. Now I'm just wondering if I really saw a unicorn or not. If my cellphone dreams about unicorns, I guess that means it's an android, huh? But I already knew that.

I did notice while searching for rumors, that just last month reports suggested Harrison Ford would be onboard for a sequel. After Indiana Jones 4 and rumors about Star Wars 7, I'm afraid Ford might just be signing up for train wrecks in his old age. A shame, since I always want to enjoy his work.

 

[Lionsfan]

Firstly let's get the facts straight, Blade Runner 2 is in development but it is not a "remake" of the original. Alcon Entertainment recently released a press release about the project. Basically the script is being rewritten by the guy who rewrote Robocopalypse and is a rewrite of a script put together by Hampton Fancher who did the original Blade Runner script.

I find it frustrating that people criticise sequels just because there have been bad examples of sequels and prequels in the past. I could name countless examples of successful sequels: Aliens, Indiana Jones, LOTR, Terminator 2, Star Wars, Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, The Dark Knight Trilogy etc. What people should be bemoaning is the lack of quality of films in general that are being produced, not just sequels. There has been too much of a focus on style, special effects, CGI, celebrity over recent years and not enough emphasis on characters, atmosphere and a good story.

Some could argue that Ridley Scott has lost his touch (see Prometheus) but you can't chastise this project before you have seen it completed. It would be very possible to create a good story in the same world as the original movie, without revisiting the same characters, in fact I would argue that the Blade Runner world provides a fantastic setting for other stories to be told.

Just gonna point something out, all of the sequels you listed came out fairly close to the original movie. Alien to Aliens and Terminator was the largest difference, at 7 years, but the others were 3 and 5 (Indiana Jones), 1 and 1 (LOTR), 3 (Star Wars), 3 (Star Trek), 3 (Batman Begins).

But BladeRunner 2 will be made at least 30 years after the original. We all saw what happened the last time Harrison Ford got involved in a project after over a decade of sitting on it.

 

[Gatx]

Where the hell would they go with BladeRunner 2? It's not like it would work well as a sequel. I wouldn't mind a remake of the film, with the proviso that they changed the ending so that it fit the message of the book more.

Spoiler

Harrison Ford running away with his sex slave is pretty screwed up. Also I don't remember anywhere in the movie that he actually buys an animal/mechanical animal.

That's probably why they changed the title from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

Firstly let's get the facts straight, Blade Runner 2 is in development but it is not a "remake" of the original. Alcon Entertainment recently released a press release about the project. Basically the script is being rewritten by the guy who rewrote Robocopalypse and is a rewrite of a script put together by Hampton Fancher who did the original Blade Runner script.

I find it frustrating that people criticise sequels just because there have been bad examples of sequels and prequels in the past. I could name countless examples of successful sequels: Aliens, Indiana Jones, LOTR, Terminator 2, Star Wars, Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, The Dark Knight Trilogy etc. What people should be bemoaning is the lack of quality of films in general that are being produced, not just sequels. There has been too much of a focus on style, special effects, CGI, celebrity over recent years and not enough emphasis on characters, atmosphere and a good story.

The difference is that Blade Runner is based on a book that didn't have a sequel, and sequels for popular movie adaptations of books generally haven't turned out well. Rambo turned from a thought provoking story about returning veterans into the icon of mindless action movies, and Die Hard went from a clever twist on generic action movies to becoming a generic action movie.

 

[Gatx]

Absolutely, it is easy to point out sequels that have been failures, but for every sequel that you point out I can point out a 1000 non-sequel movies that have been failures too. The Blade Runner universe has hardly been overused either, other than the original movie and a computer game there have been no other official published works. Countless films and other media have taken influence from it so why would it not be possible to create a fantastic movie in the Blade Runner universe with new characters if executed properly?

Well that's not what I was getting at, more like it's just not a good sign. It doesn't matter if you point out a bunch of bad movies because that's not the same situation I was describing. When you make a movie only sequel, I think the potential problem is that the sequel will try to capitalize one what made the first movie popular, which isn't what necessarily made the first one good (which is why Rambo became a straight up action movie and lost the PTSD stuff), and it definitely won't feel in anyway like an intended continuation of the story because the original story it was adapted from didn't have a sequel.

 

[Heronblade]

If its what I think it is, no, its got nothing to do with blade runner. I don't know about the unicorn, but the rest of it sounds like a thing Sprint has been running in theatres these days.


Never messed with it myself, since it requires facebook, so I'm afraid I can't tell you what exactly it does.

 

[Lionsfan]

Just gonna point something out, all of the sequels you listed came out fairly close to the original movie. Alien to Aliens and Terminator was the largest difference, at 7 years, but the others were 3 and 5 (Indiana Jones), 1 and 1 (LOTR), 3 (Star Wars), 3 (Star Trek), 3 (Batman Begins). But BladeRunner 2 will be made at least 30 years after the original.

You've kind of missed my point and focused on inconsequential details. Just to respond to your comment though - here are some examples of good sequels/remakes with a larger gap in time:

Batman Begins (2005) - Batman and Robin (1997) - 8 years
The Fly (1986) - The Fly (1958) - 28 years
The Thing (1982) - The Thing from Another World (1951) - 31 years
Scarface (1983) - Scarface (1932) - 51 years

This is entirely besides the point. It's completely possible to revisit a universe and do a successful job of it, the quality of the film comes down to the execution of the film maker.

We all saw what happened the last time Harrison Ford got involved in a project after over a decade of sitting on it.

There is no conclusive evidence that Harrison Ford is going to be in this movie, and furthermore you cannot blame him for the shortcomings of the abomination that was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Additionally, just because he was in one bad follow up film does not mean that all other follow up films are doomed to failure.

I'm sorry but none of those examples count. Not according to you anyways. Yes, it is completely possible to revisit a movie universe no matter how much time has passed, however all of those movies you listed are remakes, and according to you, "Blade Runner 2 is in development but it is not a "remake" of the original".

Sure anything is possible and it's all up to the individual film makers, but pretty much all great sequels took some of the momentum built from the first movie, struck while the iron was hot (or at least relevant), and made it into something better.

But with Blade Runner 2, the iron isn't hot, and there's no momentum from the original. It's already off to a rocky start just with the time gap, and then there's the fact that Ridley Scott hasn't made a great movie in over a decade, and hasn't made a good movie since 2007. When you add in that the whole thing is reportedly being written by Michael Green, and yeah, there's a pretty good chance it's going to stink.[footnote]As well as screwing up some of the themes and ideas from the original[/footnote]