Holy crap, that's made me excited. Also enjoyed the quippy 'some assembly required' tagline. Just the shots of them all in the same room are enough for me. Bring on 2012.

I saw an advert for Rise of the Planet of the Apes last night. Man, does that look shitty.

If Chris Evans doesn't get to shout "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE!" at some point I will be deeply disappointed. Yes it's an incredibly cheesy line, but it is iconic.

I actually got goosebumps from that Avengers trailer.

OMG. I could barely see half of it, but what I did see looked AMAZEBALLS.

Squee!

There aren't many films this year that have caught my eye so I'm glad that 2012 is looking so brilliant already.

The Amazing Spider-Man Trailer.

Doesn't look too bad, but there's more that a tad of déjà vu to it.

I hope that first-person bit is something they've only done for the trailer, because it is distractingly terrible.

^ The wall crawling?

The bit that looks like it was lifted straight out of Mirrors Edge.

Ha, I was just about to make that comparison.

Yeah. It just looks really, really shoddy for a film that probably cost a lot of money.



Thank you! I knew there was a game that it looked like, but couldn't remember which it was.

I really liked that POV shot. Probably went on a little too long though, so I'm guessing it's just for the trailer.

'The Dark Knight Rises' teaser trailer

All that teaser does is make me excited about watching The Dark Knight.

Indeed. It's certainly a bit too previous to be putting teaser trailers out just yet. Would have been better to wait until September/October, once they've got some decent new footage to use. Bane does look (albeit fleetingly) encouragingly menacing though. Should still be damn good quality from Nolan, I has faith.

Oh, it hasn't dimmed my enthusiasm for the film one jot, it's just an odd chocie to make the teaser so reliant on old footage. Bane does look pretty terrifying, though. Bulking up for Bronson seems to have had a very positive effect on Tom Hardy's career overall.

Awesome teaser trailer leads into disappointing teaser poster-

I'm looking forward to Hardy and Bale - and always teh Oldman - but that's about it.

I maybe alone in this but Nolan's signature film tricks are becoming very apparent. The booming/whispering music. The up-camera shots of buildings.

But isn't that the nature of most teaser posters?

It's a bit unfair to criticize that just yet; the movie isn't out for ages and the CGI won't be completely rendered yet. It's like when the Iron Man 2 teaser came out, people cried out about how shitty it looked - but that wasn't how it looked in the finished product. Ditto with the Transformers movies.

I think it was just for the trailer, anyway - a way to show off Spidey's powers and then reveal a quick glimpse at the costume.

New Inbetweeners trailer

Looks like there's a big fight in Dark Knight Rises.

I'm looking forward to lots of homoerotic overtones.

First picture from the new Superman film.

Cool.

The greatest film of all time?

Maybe the second best - after this.

Ridley Scott to direct new 'Blade Runner' film.

Hmm . . .

The Woman In Black

I'm quite looking forward to this film.

The more I see pictures of Daniel Radcliffe these days, the more I keep thinking a Harry Enfield biopic is but only a few years from happening now.
































I didn't say this was a good thing.

I vote sequel, starring Harrison Ford again: Blade Zimmer


Or perhaps, really... Frame Zimmer.

I remember seeing the theatrical adaptation of Woman in Black and went in with the very ignorant "psh, how could a play be scary" attitude. I came out shaking. It was unbelievable. I'm very much looking forward to this. Great to see Hammer making movies.

The Blade Runner video game had little to do with the movie, but had an excellent story. It starred a rookie Blade Runner officer who had to go investigate reports of Replicants, because all the senior officers were tied up with other things (such as the events of the movie, as it's set at the same time). Deckard wasn't in it at all, but it was brilliant.

I'm sure it won't be that, but it showed how you could make a Blade Runner story with nothing much to do with the original movie and still have it work perfectly.

Is that a sequel to Woman in Red? (Is Kelly LeBrock in it?).



Blade Runner doesn't need a sequel, or prequel, it's fine as it is. Hopefully the Alien film Scott's doing will tank and take this with it.

Just written a little blog about that very idea here.

^ Again with the "Why is this needed?"

It's not "needed" but its an interesting world with some interesting ideas that could be explored so why not. No films are needed other than to tell a good story.

Oh Ade is funny.

Aliens didn't "need" to be made. Terminator 2 didn't "need" to be made. Indiana Jones and the last Crusade didn't "need" to be made. Very few movies "needed" to be made.

So long as Ridley Scott realises that Deckard's story finished with the end of the movie, there are plenty of interesting directions another film could take. For his Director's Cut he removed the last scene of them escaping the city, and given that Replicants have a four-year lifespan, Rachel (and Deckard, if you buy into that, which I don't) will be long dead now, as Harrison Ford clearly doesn't look three years older than he was when the first movie was made.

Blade Runner is a great movie, but there was a lot more to the setting than Deckard coming out of retirement. What about the space colonies? What about the rest of Earth? What about other police officers?

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep had plenty of unused ideas, some of which would work well in the movie universe. Or even just write a new plot.

There is of course a very high probability that the film will be terrible, but unlike most sequels made decades after the original, Blade Runner has the option to have absolutely nothing to do with the original film. The big question is, will Ridley Scott be able to move away from the original and leave it be? Given that Prometheus will have only tentative links to the Alien series (my bet is the Wayland-Yutani Corporation will be in it, but the Xenomorph will not), it's entirely possible that Scott knows what he's doing. I hope so, anyway.



That kind of attitude is what gives me confidence in Prometheus, and by extension the Blade Runner movie.

Aliens and Terminator 2 are very much exceptions to the rule that sequels aren't as good as the original, and both series also went on to produce other films that were below par (it's also telling that you cited The Last Crusade rather than The Temple of Doom, by the way).

Ignoring book or comic book adaptations, which have set stories or mythologies to follow, it is very rare indeed for an original film to spawn a better sequel (okay, so Blade Runner isn't exactly an original film, but it's not a straight adaptation either).

For every Aliens you have to sit through a Matrix Reloaded; for every Terminator 2 you have a Ghostbusters 2 (admittedly, most sequels aren't that bad, but they are rarely better than the films that spawned them).

The recent trend in Hollywood for resurrecting old films to turn into new franchise has resulted in some pretty poor efforts (Tron 2 and Clash of the Titans, for example), because the films in question weren't self-contained stories in their own right, but set up for what was intended to follow.

Some films can stand on their own. They don't need to have a sequel to explain how the characters are doing now, or a prequel to explain how the world came to be the way it was in the original. Not every film needs to spawn a franchise and I really don't want to see a version of Blade Runner that is all pumping toons and blurred CGI action (I'm not saying that's the way it will be, but given recent "reimaginings" it's not something that can be ruled out).

I would argue that Terminator 2 has aged really, really badly, especially in comparison to the original Terminator and is nowhere near as good as people remember it being. Although mostly I hold this opinion because of how shitty Edward Furlong is and how shitty the dialogue he's given is.

I'm not too worried about how it'll look, as it's in the hands of Ridley Scott. But I do hope that it's an unconnected story in the same universe... & that it won't contain any more back story / explanation to the happening in the original film.

I've not see T2 for several years now, I might have to track down a copy.

T2 is still awesome and the effects are awesome and I don't care at all that Edward Furlong is terrible. I love that film. I love it a whole bunch more than I love the first.

The point I was making wasn't that most sequels are poor but some are good, it was that very few movies 'need' sequels. Terminator, Alien, Raiders etc are all solid stand-alone movies in their own right, none of which required sequels - but a sequel was made, and it was good. Blade Runner similarly doesn't need a sequel, but that doesn't mean that if a sequel were made it would be bad. That's the point I was trying to make.

The Kurt Russel movie Soldier is set in the same world as Blade Runner, but has nothing whatsoever to do with Blade Runner (though I've not actually seen it, so I can't attest to the quality of the movie - though that's not what I'm getting at). It's not even set on Earth. Prometheus has nothing to do with Alien at all, only that it exists in that same universe - and what's wrong with that? Die Hard and Jurassic Park could exist in the same universe. All Prometheus will do is reference a couple of things, like maybe having the milk-blooded androids in, or the Wayland-Yutani Corporation. It's not like it'll have Ripley's grandmother in, or even the Alien itself. The two movies simply exist in the same version of the future, that's all. We know there's a lot more to that future than just finding the Xenomorph. The Marines in Aliens are very much used to fighting alien species and going to alien planets, and indeed mention other sentient and intelligent races. Prometheus could slip easily into that, just telling a story about one of those other races. The story, characters, events, locations and everything else has absolutely nothing to do with Alien. The only common thread is that they're both set in the same future of humanity. It doesn't matter to either film that they're related; they just are. All the Quentin Tarantino movies exist in the same universe, but that doesn't make Pulp Fiction a sequel to Reservoir Dogs. There are little bits here and there, odd lines and placement of things, that link the movies into the same universe. That's all Prometheus will be, and to dismiss it and hope it fails so badly it takes Scott's future projects away from him makes no sense to me.

Blade Runner's new movie will be much the same, though closer to the original movie. Just because Blade Runner's story ended doesn't mean another movie set in the near future about Replicants can't exist. The two will have nothing to do with each-other.


EDIT: Don't get me wrong, it may well be a terrible idea. I just don't think it's so bad on principle as to condemn it from one line of text in a news report. It's not like news that The Thing is being remade (again) or something - a bad idea it may be, but it also has the potential to be a great film, if Scott takes it in the right direction.

I'm liking this short season at the ICA:
http://www.ica.org.uk/30285/Seasons/1970s-...-of-Nature.html

What the fuck have they done to World War Z?

I can't open that at work. What have they done?