FAQ  •  Login

The Final Cut details are now HERE!!!

Moderator: dmohrUSC

<<

deepysea

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 126

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:05 am

Post Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:28 pm

msgeek wrote:I doubt that Disney would loan out their precious El Capitan, but I am pretty sure that the El Capitan has one of the most advanced digital projection systems in Los Angeles. I'm sure they could project the 4K version of the Final Cut no problem

Oh, please don't let that be true! The El Capitan has *awful* seating and it's one of the smallest theaters I know. If you don't pay extra to sit right in the middle, you're thrown to the sides or the shallow balcony and have to watch the movie at what seems like a 60-degree angle or worse.

The Arclight or the new Landmark are definitely their best bests...

I don't know what kind of projection they have at the newly refurbished Nuart, but given its role in the resurrection of this film, it would only seem poetic justice to screen it there.
<<

deleted

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1191

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:11 pm

Location: The banks of chaos in my mind

Post Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:45 pm

Thanks for the CHUD link, that was great.
[In reference to A Good Year] "So anyway, fuck 'em. It was a good film."
-Ridley Scott
<<

eccentricbeing

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 117

Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:31 pm

Post Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:07 pm

CHUD links were great. I hope Charlie keeps pushing for a more national release instead of limited as well as worldwide so everyone can appreciate it on the big screen. Moments like those would certainly be cherished.

Make it happen, Warners.
<<

I. J. Thompson

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 182

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:07 am

Location: Toronto ON, CA

Post Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:26 pm

Yes, thank you again for the CHUD link! Good info. And I always felt that the hospital scenes would derail the momentum.

Man, I hope they can get Final Cut into the Toronto International Film Festival, like they did with the DC...
"Nobody respects you later, for having been a nice guy and given up." -Ridley Scott
<<

dmohrUSC

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 197

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:46 am

Location: Madison, WI, USA

Post Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:46 pm

Well, so much for all the hullabaloo last week about Ridley Scott's fielding potential screenplays for a possible BR sequel...interview with him from today's 'L.A. Times':

L.A Times: Last week you teased people again with the idea of a "Blade Runner" sequel. What is the deal?

Ridley Scott: There is no sequel. And I intend probably never to do a sequel. . . . I like to do the first one, and if they want to do a sequel? Fine.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... brity-news
<<

Kipple

User avatar

Honorary Member

Posts: 1266

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Satellite 2

Post Sat Aug 04, 2007 2:37 am

dmohrUSC wrote:Well, so much for all the hullabaloo last week about Ridley Scott's fielding potential screenplays for a possible BR sequel...interview with him from today's 'L.A. Times':

L.A Times: Last week you teased people again with the idea of a "Blade Runner" sequel. What is the deal?

Ridley Scott: There is no sequel. And I intend probably never to do a sequel. . . . I like to do the first one, and if they want to do a sequel? Fine.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... brity-news


Good. :D
Image
<<

dmohrUSC

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 197

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:46 am

Location: Madison, WI, USA

Post Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:43 am

I'm with you, Kipple, even if we're in the minority on this one :cry:

And for all the folks out there who think 'Godfather Part III' is as good or better than 'Part I' or 'Part II,' god bless you, and I hope you're enjoying your wayward and delusional lives.
<<

msgeek

User avatar

Elite Rep Detector
Elite Rep Detector

Posts: 416

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:49 pm

Location: Paranoia City, Valley Sector, LA County

Post Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:13 am

dmohrUSC wrote:I'm with you, Kipple, even if we're in the minority on this one :cry:


Well, I agree with you. I don't want to see a direct sequel. I wouldn't mind seeing an Anime set in the milieu of Blade Runner that centers around new characters, with maybe voice cameos of original characters. A sequel would not have a prayer of capturing the same "lightning in a bottle" of the original. Worst case would be a live action movie based on KW Jeter's "sequel" novels. Eew.
<<

deleted

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1191

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:11 pm

Location: The banks of chaos in my mind

Post Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:54 pm

dmohrUSC wrote:I'm with you, Kipple, even if we're in the minority on this one :cry:

And for all the folks out there who think 'Godfather Part III' is as good or better than 'Part I' or 'Part II,' god bless you, and I hope you're enjoying your wayward and delusional lives.

...when did this become a Godfather 3 bashing thread?? Completely irrelevant.

And, God forbid they ever let Jeter have anything to do with any future BR projects.
[In reference to A Good Year] "So anyway, fuck 'em. It was a good film."
-Ridley Scott
<<

dmohrUSC

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 197

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:46 am

Location: Madison, WI, USA

Post Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:50 pm

deleted, deleted. For you and everyone else out there who might need these things spelled out, here's my point with comparing 'Godfather 3' and a potential 'BR' sequel directed by Ridley Scott.

Personally, I believe the quality of any given film is related directly to the "sensibility" of a director, at any given point in their lives. Every movie - and for that matter, work of art - ever made is a thing shaped of its own time and place in history, and where those artist's sensibilities were at their point in their own personal evolution (or, as some of us might oftentimes regard it, devolution).

The fact is that artistic and aesthetic sensibilities change over time. The greatest example (to me, anyways) is Godfather Parts I & II vs. Godfather Part III. I would personally argue that the very greatest aspect of what makes Parts I & II endure as great moviemaking and great art is Francis Ford Coppola's directorial SENSIBILITY (or temperament if you like), his extraordinarily sharp, insightful and unique way of looking at the world and portraying it dramatically and cinematically, circa 1972-74. Coppola simply had a completely different emotional and artistic sensibility in 1990 when he made Godfather Part III than he did in 1972-74 when he made Parts I & II.

It's totally up to you, deleted, or anyone else, to be convinced that Ridley Scott's directorial sensibility hasn't changed one single iota since the days of 'Alien' and 'BR' circa 1979-82, and that if he started work on a BR sequel, it would be as brilliantly uncompromising moment-for-moment as his on-set work behind the camera in 1979-82. Do I myself really believe that?

In the interests of civility, and with genuine respect to this website that I admire and am glad to contribute to, I truly have *no* interest in turning this thread into a bashing of Ridley Scott's post-BR filmography. I'll just say that you can definitely count me in the negative on the latter question, and that I personally pray that Ridley Scott never attempts to make a 'BR' sequel. But of course, that's just me.

Hope that's a little more relevant for you, deleted.
<<

I. J. Thompson

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 182

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:07 am

Location: Toronto ON, CA

Post Sat Aug 04, 2007 2:15 pm

Westwood's BR video game satisfied any fanboyish need for a sequel I had, and as a bonus, didn't mar the film in any way, as they were two completely different mediums... no muss, no fuss! ;)
"Nobody respects you later, for having been a nice guy and given up." -Ridley Scott
<<

nexuszix

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 148

Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:43 am

Location: off-world

Post Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:12 am

dmohrUSC wrote:deleted, deleted. For you and everyone else out there who might need these things spelled out, here's my point with comparing 'Godfather 3' and a potential 'BR' sequel directed by Ridley Scott.

Personally, I believe the quality of any given film is related directly to the "sensibility" of a director, at any given point in their lives. Every movie - and for that matter, work of art - ever made is a thing shaped of its own time and place in history, and where those artist's sensibilities were at their point in their own personal evolution (or, as some of us might oftentimes regard it, devolution).

The fact is that artistic and aesthetic sensibilities change over time. The greatest example (to me, anyways) is Godfather Parts I & II vs. Godfather Part III. I would personally argue that the very greatest aspect of what makes Parts I & II endure as great moviemaking and great art is Francis Ford Coppola's directorial SENSIBILITY (or temperament if you like), his extraordinarily sharp, insightful and unique way of looking at the world and portraying it dramatically and cinematically, circa 1972-74. Coppola simply had a completely different emotional and artistic sensibility in 1990 when he made Godfather Part III than he did in 1972-74 when he made Parts I & II.

It's totally up to you, deleted, or anyone else, to be convinced that Ridley Scott's directorial sensibility hasn't changed one single iota since the days of 'Alien' and 'BR' circa 1979-82, and that if he started work on a BR sequel, it would be as brilliantly uncompromising moment-for-moment as his on-set work behind the camera in 1979-82. Do I myself really believe that?

In the interests of civility, and with genuine respect to this website that I admire and am glad to contribute to, I truly have *no* interest in turning this thread into a bashing of Ridley Scott's post-BR filmography. I'll just say that you can definitely count me in the negative on the latter question, and that I personally pray that Ridley Scott never attempts to make a 'BR' sequel. But of course, that's just me.

Hope that's a little more relevant for you, deleted.


:roll: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...ever get the impression someone takes themselves a little to seriously ?
" wake up..time to die !"
<<

dmohrUSC

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 197

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:46 am

Location: Madison, WI, USA

Post Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:36 am

Rock on, nexuszix. Dude, you are SO the man. I'm proud to have you as a friend. Have a great day.
<<

nexuszix

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 148

Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:43 am

Location: off-world

Post Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:10 am

dmohrUSC wrote:Rock on, nexuszix. Dude, you are SO the man. I'm proud to have you as a friend. Have a great day.


Really ? I thought YOU were the man ,what with all your 'friends in the movie biz' :wink:
" wake up..time to die !"
<<

deleted

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1191

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:11 pm

Location: The banks of chaos in my mind

Post Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:52 pm

dmohrUSC wrote:deleted, deleted. For you and everyone else out there who might need these things spelled out, here's my point with comparing 'Godfather 3' and a potential 'BR' sequel directed by Ridley Scott.

Personally, I believe the quality of any given film is related directly to the "sensibility" of a director, at any given point in their lives. Every movie - and for that matter, work of art - ever made is a thing shaped of its own time and place in history, and where those artist's sensibilities were at their point in their own personal evolution (or, as some of us might oftentimes regard it, devolution).

The fact is that artistic and aesthetic sensibilities change over time. The greatest example (to me, anyways) is Godfather Parts I & II vs. Godfather Part III. I would personally argue that the very greatest aspect of what makes Parts I & II endure as great moviemaking and great art is Francis Ford Coppola's directorial SENSIBILITY (or temperament if you like), his extraordinarily sharp, insightful and unique way of looking at the world and portraying it dramatically and cinematically, circa 1972-74. Coppola simply had a completely different emotional and artistic sensibility in 1990 when he made Godfather Part III than he did in 1972-74 when he made Parts I & II.

It's totally up to you, deleted, or anyone else, to be convinced that Ridley Scott's directorial sensibility hasn't changed one single iota since the days of 'Alien' and 'BR' circa 1979-82, and that if he started work on a BR sequel, it would be as brilliantly uncompromising moment-for-moment as his on-set work behind the camera in 1979-82. Do I myself really believe that?

In the interests of civility, and with genuine respect to this website that I admire and am glad to contribute to, I truly have *no* interest in turning this thread into a bashing of Ridley Scott's post-BR filmography. I'll just say that you can definitely count me in the negative on the latter question, and that I personally pray that Ridley Scott never attempts to make a 'BR' sequel. But of course, that's just me.

Hope that's a little more relevant for you, deleted.

Ha ha, I'm not gonna fall for your bullshit anymore. :lol:

Anyway, I wonder what non-workprint footage, other than the new unicorn dream, Scott will include in the FC...
[In reference to A Good Year] "So anyway, fuck 'em. It was a good film."
-Ridley Scott
PreviousNext

Return to Special Edition - Final Cut

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron