Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 19:02:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Nov 12, 2016 19:11:03 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by pairesta on Dec 1, 2016 21:21:09 GMT -5
Objectively, no. But I can't help but be intrigued because of the Villeneuve/Johanssen/Deakins involvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by rimjobflashmob on Dec 1, 2016 21:57:15 GMT -5
I would rather see a new, original property (or adaptation) directed by Villaneuve than a sequel to a movie from 34 years ago that never needed one.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkInTexas on Dec 2, 2016 11:52:24 GMT -5
If you had asked me three years ago if a revival of Mad Max was a good idea, I probably would have said "no".
No, Blade Runner doesn't need a 35-years-later sequel. But the people making it are talented, and I'm willing to give it a chance for that reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2016 12:46:08 GMT -5
Dennis Villeneuve teaming up with Roger mothafucking Deakins to bring us a sequel to one of the most visually creative/stunning movies of all time, Yes.
|
|
