Why good sequels are bad sequels

James Curnow of Curnblog has some thought-provoking thoughts on sequels in general and “Blade Runner 2049” in particular.

klko_blade_runner_figures Continue reading

“Making of Rachel” featurette

Blade Runner 2049” will surely remain in history at least for 2 reasons – it has incredible, mesmerizing visuals that have more to with real art than digital special effects. Secondly, it is a rare successful and thoughtful sequel of a cult film that really expands this fascinating and dark universe.


Still, digital effects in this film were as impressive as just everything else. In fact, only now I realized that Rachel was digitally modified… that never happened to me before! Even in some recent Star Wars installments with their stellar budgets it was pretty clear when somebody (like Peter Cushing…) was artificially re-created. But not here.


It lasts around 2 minutes. Consider switching the audio off – there’s some stupid annoying song that has nothing to do with the film.

Ridley Scott & 3 Early Symptoms of Dementia


Ridley Scott is becoming pretty good at trolling… Or is he getting too old?

1. On ”Star Wars: The Last Jedi”

“Because I know what I’m doing. I think they like to be in control, and I like to be in control myself. When you get a guy who’s done a low-budget movie and you suddenly give him $180 million, it makes no sense whatsoever. It’s fuckin’ stupid. You know what the reshoots cost?”

“Millions! Millions. You can get me for my fee, which is heavy, but I’ll be under budget and on time. This is where experience does matter, it’s as simple as that! It can make you dull as dishwater, but if you’re really experienced and you know what you’re doing, it’s fucking essential. Grow into it, little by little. Start low-budget, get a little bit bigger, maybe after $20 million, you can go to $80. But don’t suddenly go to $160.” (source)

  • What an old fart. He even can’t make any other loosy ”Alien” sequels because nobody will sponsor it since he almost ruined the film franchise he started in 1979. Does Scott really think that directing 2 cult movies 30+ years ago lets him to be that arrogant?
  • I’m actually curious if he knows who actually directed the first Star Wars movie and how experienced that guy was at the moment (hint – George Lucas directed just 2 movies ”THX-1138” and ”American Grafitti”, both costed less than $1 mln).
  • No matter what you think of the last Star Wars installment, Rian Johnson directed wonderful movies before, and his ”Looper” was an original, fresh and awesome sci-fi flick, with the box office of $176 mln and $30 mln budget.
  • The Duellists”, Scott’s debut film actually costed 11-12 times less than ”Alien”, his second feature film. Rian Johnson’s ”Looper” costed roughly 7 times less than ”Star Wars: The Last Jedi”.

2. On ”Blade Runner 2049”

“I have to be careful what I say. I have to be careful what I say,” Scott whispered, which he immediately followed by saying: “It was fucking way too long. Fuck me!” (source)

“It’s slow. It’s slow. Long. Too long. I would have taken out half an hour.” (source)


3. On ”Exodus: Gods and Kings”

Scott directed ”Exodus: Gods and Kings” in 2014 and the film was largely criticized for casting white actors to play Egyptians. While this kind of criticism may be an obvious  Internet age trolling bullshit, what actually the Scott replied is disturbing:

“I can’t mount a film of this budget, where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain, and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such. I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up.” (source)


I don’t like ranting and I consider some of Ridley Scott’s films to be incredibly important, but I hate arrogance more than anything in this world.