Jean Michelle Jarre sounds

[Numanoid]

Voight-Kampff fail

[Aryaroman]

Voight-Kampff fail

I can't believe I'm saying this, but if they can't get Vangelis to do Blade Runner 2, I hope they don't ask Jarre or Tangerine Dream, based on the new material of theirs. They'd seriously need to up their game.

[chk071]

Blade Runner 2 made today wouldn't be at all related to what part 1 represented anyway. They'd make an unimaginative Hollywood movie for nowadays audience out of it anyway. Probably directed by JJ "i mess up every classical franchise which i get under my new-fashioned fingers" Abrams, starring Chris Pine as Deckard. But seriously, i really hope they at least leave that one alone, and DON'T make a sequel. Not a huge fan of the original film, but i hate what they do to all the classic franchises these days. Flat stuff for a flat audience without demands. Haven't watched a good Hollywood film in the last 10 years. It's more or less all cr**. And Vangelis will surely not make the soundtrack. Much too old school.

[Aryaroman]

Blade Runner 2 made today wouldn't be at all related to what part 1 represented anyway. They'd make an unimaginative Hollywood movie for nowadays audience out of it anyway. Probably directed by JJ "i mess up every classical franchise which i get under my new-fashioned fingers" Abrams, starring Chris Pine as Deckard. But seriously, i really hope they at least leave that one alone, and DON'T make a sequel. Not a huge fan of the original film, but i hate what they do to all the classic franchises these days. Flat stuff for a flat audience without demands. Haven't watched a good Hollywood film in the last 10 years. It's more or less all cr**. And Vangelis will surely not make the soundtrack. Much too old school.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

http://collider.com/blade-runner-2-harr ... n-gosling/

No Chris Pine as Deckard, but old Harrison Ford as old Deckard and mentor and Ryan Gosling as the new protagonist of a new trilogy, likely. Even the new Alien-prequel-saga is getting a whole trilogy, so I see Blade Runner getting a one. And Ridley isn't directing, just producing.

I can't speak for Star Trek, never have been into it as a whole.

But I think, according to majority, Abrams didn't f*ck up Star Wars. Or at least not as much as pretty much any other director might have. You have to admit, it does look and sound like Star Wars, at the very least. Rian Johnson has to do a lot to make it work.

The guy directing the third movie however... I have no hope for him. I think he directed some kind of Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles-film, produced by Michael Bay. If he had been the one to direct Force Awakens... I can't even imagine that.

[chk071]

Ok, so it's the 74 year old Ford as Deckard (doh...). They will still f*** it up, you will see. I recommend watching part 1 before you go into the cinema for part 2. And see how messed up it is compared. Seriously, Hollywood is $$$. Using the Blade Runner franchise is $$$. Being forced to make it compatible to nowadays audience is $$$. There's just no way around that. And no way it will be a good movie, regardless of what the "competent" voters on IMDB will say.

Star Trek is the complete POS now that Abrams took over. Spock was such an awesome character in the old series, and movies. Now he's an emotional thug, which even has a liaison with one of the ship's crew members, something you would never have seen in the old movies. And Kirk is a needy, character less drunkard, without manners. How would someone like that be able to command a ship or a crew? And why the heck have they used the old characters, when completely rebuilding them, if it wasn't for $$$ again? Ridiculous.

[Aryaroman]

Ok, so it's the 74 year old Ford as Deckard (doh...). They will still f*** it up, you will see. I recommend watching part 1 before you go into the cinema for part 2. And see how messed up it is compared. Seriously, Hollywood is $$$. Using the Blade Runner franchise is $$$. Being forced to make it compatible to nowadays audience is $$$. There's just no way around that. And no way it will be a good movie, regardless of what the "competent" voters on IMDB will say.

Ford was great in Force Awakens.

I've seen Blade Runner multiple times, and I've seen it even in a cinema, though not back when it aired. I don't think it's such a masterpiece. The plot is somewhat poorly adapted from the book it's based on, in a sense that the story loses a lot of more or less essential things to keep the tempo focused, plot coherent and the world feel real. They way it's made, trades a lot of depth for the action and makes the world feel much smaller and set-decorative. The special effects don't make up for what's missing. So in a sense, it's more or less a product of the Hollywood of it's time, albeit much more unique and above the average sunday flick.

I love the soundtrack and the opening sequence and visual representation is fascinating, but as it often happens, having read the book, feels like something's missing.

The thing is though, sunday flicks used to be better. A sunday flick from the eighties, seems like a masterpiece compared to the sex-and-gore CGI/green screen-crap of today.

I do share your fear for Blade Runner 2 and think that the director is a big concern. Ryan Gosling could very well make a great lead and if they'd pair him with Nicholas-Winding-Ryef for the director, that'd be the best thing ever.

[chk071]

Ford was great in Force Awakens.

He is a great actor definitely. He doesn't get younger though, and i couldn't really imagine him to be authentic as an action character in the next Indiana Jones film.

I've seen Blade Runner multiple times, and I've seen it even in a cinema, though not back when it aired. I don't think it's such a masterpiece.

I also agree with that. I don't think it's such a masterpiece either, and it probably had more of a "wow" factor when it came out. Still a decent movie IMO, and definitely with an own atmosphere. Not a huge fan of Vangelis either though, so i can't see the soundtrack as a big cult factor either. Nonetheless, i don't think it's nice to ride on such an old hyped franchise wave.

Also with computer games, i think that most of the reboots, remakes, or sequels simply suck, especially when there's not the same people involved. Mostly, the new guys lack a feeling for the original material, and also need to conform it to the nowadays audience, which commonly means dumbing down game mechanics, giving a visual, and sonic impression rather than impressing with a good story, deep and likeable characters, and, when it's an action title, lots of boom boom, and "WOW!" stuff behind every corner. I simply often feel like i've grown out of the target audience these days. Fair enough, but it's pretty sad to see this kind of flattening of everything.

[Aryaroman]

Also with computer games, i think that most of the reboots, remakes, or sequels simply suck, especially when there's not the same people involved. Mostly, the new guys lack a feeling for the original material, and also need to conform it to the nowadays audience, which commonly means dumbing down game mechanics, giving a visual, and sonic impression rather than impressing with a good story, deep and likeable characters, and, when it's an action title, lots of boom boom, and "WOW!" stuff behind every corner. I simply often feel like i've grown out of the target audience these days. Fair enough, but it's pretty sad to see this kind of flattening of everything.

Absolutely. This is a truly strange evolution you can see pretty much everywhere from movies to games to music. Perhaps it has something to do with the internet giving voice and tools to everyone regardless of their maturity or know-about of anything. Today everyone's a musician, a social media celebrity, actor, writer...

Keeping with that there's a sad progression of everyone giving up on conforming to any kinds of standards, because there is a lack of any. First it was just piracy and now it's more or less everywhere. Everything is free, except it's not. Roger Daltry is old and prejudiced, but he has a point. The internet is among many things, a destructive one.

[HunterKiller]

Blade Runner 2 made today wouldn't be at all related to what part 1 represented anyway. They'd make an unimaginative Hollywood movie for nowadays audience out of it anyway. Probably directed by JJ "i mess up every classical franchise which i get under my new-fashioned fingers" Abrams, starring Chris Pine as Deckard. But seriously, i really hope they at least leave that one alone, and DON'T make a sequel. Not a huge fan of the original film, but i hate what they do to all the classic franchises these days. Flat stuff for a flat audience without demands. Haven't watched a good Hollywood film in the last 10 years. It's more or less all cr**. And Vangelis will surely not make the soundtrack. Much too old school.

Ok, so it's the 74 year old Ford as Deckard (doh...). They will still f*** it up, you will see. I recommend watching part 1 before you go into the cinema for part 2. And see how messed up it is compared. Seriously, Hollywood is $$$. Using the Blade Runner franchise is $$$. Being forced to make it compatible to nowadays audience is $$$. There's just no way around that. And no way it will be a good movie, regardless of what the "competent" voters on IMDB will say.

Star Trek is the complete POS now that Abrams took over. Spock was such an awesome character in the old series, and movies. Now he's an emotional thug, which even has a liaison with one of the ship's crew members, something you would never have seen in the old movies. And Kirk is a needy, character less drunkard, without manners. How would someone like that be able to command a ship or a crew? And why the heck have they used the old characters, when completely rebuilding them, if it wasn't for $$$ again? Ridiculous.

George pretty much sums ^ all THAT up here:

[HunterKiller]

I've seen Blade Runner multiple times, and I've seen it even in a cinema, though not back when it aired. I don't think it's such a masterpiece.

I also agree with that. I don't think it's such a masterpiece either, and it probably had more of a "wow" factor when it came out.

I too like it a lot, but I don't think it's all that, as much as some (a lot of) people today think it is, as if it's some kind of religious revelation, that's how they treat it. I've observed that a lot of people see that film as some kind of stimulus into opening themselves towards thinking about the meaning of life, but there are far better movies for that... For them it's akin to the Matrix movies, and other paradigm shifting films and genres.

Not a huge fan of Vangelis either though, so i can't see the soundtrack as a big cult factor either. Nonetheless, i don't think it's nice to ride on such an old hyped franchise wave.

I'm a huge Vangelis fan, that kind of music, most of his very broad output, is very much is a part of me, so yes the music for BR was great and masterful in places. It seems to touch a lot of people, even those who've never been into sci-fi or electronic music or avant garde music.

Also with computer games, i think that most of the reboots, remakes, or sequels simply suck, especially when there's not the same people involved. Mostly, the new guys lack a feeling for the original material, and also need to conform it to the nowadays audience, which commonly means dumbing down game mechanics, giving a visual, and sonic impression rather than impressing with a good story, deep and likeable characters, and, when it's an action title, lots of boom boom, and "WOW!" stuff behind every corner. I simply often feel like i've grown out of the target audience these days. Fair enough, but it's pretty sad to see this kind of flattening of everything.

People today who are put in charge of things themselves seem to be missing many of the important aspects that make their products subsequently miss the same. Which is why the movies lack transcendental and timeless qualities. They make a lot of money, but when compared to inflation corrected box-office earnings, some of the older heavyweights are still far ahead.

As George Lucas said here...:


...you can't have movie lovers who've never had good long life experience and struggled to make it, making (good) movies, you have to have life-experiences make movies about stories worth making, and then the audience will judge whether they are good or not. That's the problem with the whole industry. Even with other industries as well. Most media today, is speaking about irrelevant bullshit that simply does not matter and never did. To some extent you could this is being intentionally made to be, because the audience then does not learn anything either, creating a very stagnant society. Locked inside of itself.

To cover up for the lack of substance, they simply overdo the packaging, i.e. in the movie industry, this translates to: over-the-top visual effects (CGI) and marketing. Which focuses on the external, rather than the internal, creating a never-ending need for more, but with no satisfaction in sight, no matter how much is consumed.

I did mention something else though, a few pages back in this thread, that it's not only the new comers which are falling short, but the "old masters" as well. Which is either attributable to age and them being thus out of phase in relevance and flair/impact, or everyone is being affected in some way to not be as creative/daring/truly relevant as people were at certain periods in the past.

And that perhaps, as we've all heard, that small groups of people who are creative, (and not in deviant and destructive ways) are being suppressed from being heard, along with the concepts they have to present, in favour of derivative copycats, or creative people but who only have deviant and destructive concepts to share. Media seems to be a powerful tool of social engineering, and in the last two decades it seems to have upped the ante in being exactly that, a force for directing the mass consciousness towards a particular direction.

[HunterKiller]

Absolutely. This is a truly strange evolution you can see pretty much everywhere from movies to games to music. Perhaps it has something to do with the internet giving voice and tools to everyone regardless of their maturity or know-about of anything. Today everyone's a musician, a social media celebrity, actor, writer...

Keeping with that there's a sad progression of everyone giving up on conforming to any kinds of standards, because there is a lack of any. First it was just piracy and now it's more or less everywhere. Everything is free, except it's not. Roger Daltry is old and prejudiced, but he has a point. The internet is among many things, a destructive one.

Good points!

Standards today, almost in any walk of life, any aspect of life, seem to stand for "prejudices" in some people's minds. Therefore, lower/destroy standards in order to accommodate those who have not even earned their way.

Which in the end creates general chaos and destruction. Which affects everyone. Even those who in their joy suddenly did not have to earn their way, making their joy short-lived.

Because there is no order to the structure, it's everyone out for themselves, in whichever way they think is right and that by its very nature is chaos promoting.

[murnau]

Is the OP still around? It's about time he/she changes the title to the correct name - It's Jean Michel Jarre. Michelle, for those who don't know, is female.

I ask myself why can't a mod or the admin correct this title? This is embarrassing for a board like KvR.

[BasariStudios]

I can't speak for Star Trek, never have been into it as a whole.:

Leave us alone.

[fluffy_little_something]

Has JMJ ever made it in the US? Vangelis was featured on BR, but was JMJ ever featured on any movie worth mentioning? In the 80s he seemed to have his own little niche of bubbly space music, but unlike other 80s music I can't hear it anymore. I remember that I even had a cassette of his in the early 80s, but it all sounded very similar to me. I only liked one or two tunes on the cassette, which meant a lot of rewinding

[Numanoid]

Has JMJ ever made it in the US?

Did he play a rather big concert in Houston in '86