Depends on what's meant by "as good as". Are we talking Box Office profit, or stuff that tanked but later became cult classics?

David Cronenberg's The Fly (1986) - a remake of Kurt Neumann's 1958 original of the same name.
John Carpenter's The Thing (1982), basically a remake of The Thing From Another World (1951) adapted for screen from John W. Campbell Jnr's novella 'Who Goes There?'.

IMHO they're an upgrade of the originals but, yeah, generally speaking I'd prefer it if the King Kong-sized budgets for remakes were instead ploughed into something fresh.

 

Last edited: May 23, 2017

One more week, anyone excited about it?

 

Is the Pope a Catholic? Or.... should that be "is Rick Deckard a Replicant?"

Damned straight, VS. So stoked by now that I'm very nearly afraid to go see it at the movie theater in case I'm crushed by disappointment. It might ruin the movie for other people if they heard a grown man crying in the dark.

 

I hope the movie sound track has less BOOMs, SWISHEZZERRRRR, and ZONGs than the trailer.

As to who is and who isn't a replicant - the film Blade Runner, was a departure from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, where the much of the story is actually very different. The Earth is still dying but its not stated implicitly and the urgency in GTFO is not as upfront in the movie. Decker's wife is dead on one, and is most certainly a devil and angel in the book....

Philip Dick stories translate to the screen well because they blend a mind that is borderline certifiably mad with subtlety of observation and some very big questions. As long as they manage to preserve that, the movie will be worth watching --

I however have very low expectations from Hollywood, they are truly their own worst enemy on most instances when it has come to releasing content worth being a patron of.

 

I saw Travolta`s Gotti trailer yesterday and all i was thinking was if they actually paid the guy who did the trailer music, check it out yourself.

Well, i have the same fears as you do about this movie, 90% of movies released today are shit, i just hope it will at least sound good.

 

Up curtain, bring on the new one which will be both louder, cleaner and as well we won't be able to smell the greasy street food smoke gritting up our face and tearing our eyes as we move around those gritty, greasy streets. Count on it.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2017

Saw it.

Thought it would be a let down but visually it was good. Lacked certain atmosphere, score is non existent, but sound design was very good.
Film is film, the movie lacked the colors and depth of the first one.
The movie is about 10-15 min too long, pacing in the middle is really bad, maybe because Gossling doesnt have such a presence as an actor, rather stiff, kind of miscast imo.
There is one very special thing about this movie though.

Spoiler: Spoiler ahead.

One thing revolutionary about this movie is that its the first movie where they managed to use a cgi face of young Sean Young, unlike they did with Arnold in one of the new Terminators, this one looks like a real human being.

All in all its worth seeing in the cinema but the rating on imdb is way too high.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 9, 2017

I saw it.. A visually amazing piece of work. I quite enjoyed it all the way through.
The score though, seemed like a walk in the park for Hans Zimmer. "Presses a note on the Arturia CS-80 plugin... done" Wooow.. Far away from Vangelis masterpiece soundtrack from the original. Damn, i could do it better even if they have given me time.. lol...
But to me it was the kind of movie you SHOULD see in the theatre IF you want to catch it. I rarely go to cinemas but felt drawn to see see it on the big screen. The visual aspect of it is the biggest satisfaction with this movie.

Someone mentioned Ghost in The Shell.. The original is great. One of my favourites. SHOULD see it if you can. Is just a little over an hour long. But again, the music in it.. Flawless...

 

Yea, most people on this forum would have made a better score, this was probably done in a hurry, as a last resort.
The movie lacked the heart of the first one, felt kind of empty, but worth seeing for the visuals alone.

 

If you can see it in the cinema you should as some of the shots are spectacular and probably the best CGI i have seen so far in a movie.

 

I totally understand where you`re coming from.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 9, 2017

Yea, it was ok.

Listening to the score. Its pretty much only risers, downers and sub bass with some filtering. 20 songs of sound design with the exception of mesa.

 

Its a financial disaster though, even more than the first one. Cost 150 mil. to make.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottm...ombs-with-disastrous-13m-friday/#f4f01df4f15a

 

I haven't watched the trailer yet. - i downloaded the OST, didin't listen yet either lol!
maybe im too affraid of getting "my movie" ruined like so many other remakes

so im in the same boat as @ArticStorm sort of. i will have to wait some more for a decent quality copy

patience is a vertue

 

Rise, Dawn and War for the Planet of the Apes. I still have hope for Hollywood because of this trilogy.

@Von_Steyr 2049 is literally a work of art. Every scene is gorgeous, regardless of whether it was rendered or not (I’m pretty sure they all were). The narrative breaks down and succumbs a little to the action-heavy ideals of popcorn but even then, it’s graceful and a joy to watch.

 

Good to see you back bro
Its looks nice alright. Wished it was more dark, cyber punk and gritty, dont you?