Blade Runner Sequels and Prequels Happening

bowman9991 writes "The iconic science fiction film Blade Runner, based on Philip K. Dick's book and directed by Ridley Scott, will be followed up with sequels and prequels soon. Alcon Entertainment is in final discussions to secure film, TV and franchise rights. They are in the early stages of sorting out how to proceed and were not sure if Ridley Scott would be involved."

I don't want more life, fucker

[Utini420]

This will all end in tears. One way or the other.

In other news....

[Unka Willbur]

The classic Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" is getting a sequel, a prequel and a reboot... "We feel there's a lot of left to explore in the world of 'Mona Lisa,'" said a greedy scum-sucking banker-type who wouldn't know art if it slapped him upside his swollen ego with a jugged fish,.

Re:sacrilege !

[greg1104]

The only surprise is that they're talking about new material inspired by Blade Runner, rather than planning a "even more gritty reboot!" of the original movie.

Re:That's it, I quit humanity

[Seumas]

A lot of people don't know better. Many (or even most?) people don't realize when a movie is a remake of a movie from decades ago. Or when a song is really a cover. Just read youtube (gah) comments for any modern cover of an older song and look at the throngs of younger people who think, for example, the Eurythmics "Sweet Dreams" is a Marylin Manson song.

Why roll out something new when you can just repackage something old to a new audience that is too naive to have a clue?

Re:In other news....

[SirGarlon]

Actually it is very common for painters even today to paint their own variations and re-interpretations of Mona Lisa. It's called a "study." Of course, it's different. The challenge in a study is to bring something new and create new art based on the same subject.

Re:That's it, I quit humanity

[fermion]

I don't know if this is new. Hollywood, it seems, has always been about brands, it is just the brands change. At one point it seems it was about the actors. Each studio owned certain people, and people would pay see those properties. Cluade Raines, Jane Russel, Charle Chapman. TV provided no competition nor means of advertising the product, real theater was and is expensive, so people just went to the moving picture show. We hear people say how much they like John Wayne, not that anything interesting happened in the movies.

Then the actors were able to move around freely, and TV provided a competitive environment and a means of advertising, and technology advanced, so there may have a short time when movies were made to be original and entertaining, maybe early 60's to late 80's. This was when the full potential of the medium was once again used, which I think had not happened since the silent films. The thing with films after the silent is I think they became obsessed with the dialogue, or the color, and forgot that film was a multi sensory experience.We see this today with movies that are overly visual. I think the classic films, the ones we use to compare to the contemporary films, completely use the medium. Gone with the wind and the burning of atlanta. Casa Blanca and the use of the black and white film as an asset. The use of contemporary f/x in Star Wars.

But comparing a selective group top films to a whole contemporary population is unfair. I would guess that most of the films from even 30 years ago are mostly unwatched by moder audiences, even the ones that we top. Xanadu was very popular, and where is it now? I don't know if Raging Bull is a top netflix choice. I have never heard of Where the Buffalo roams and the less said about Flash Gordon the better.

Which is to say that I think film is alive and well, and with ability to make films less expensively, and to distribute them, I think we will see an increase in good films, not less. They just may be showing at your local metroplex, or maybe. The Kings Speech, Black Swan, True Grit, were all top grossing film and all original and good work.. Which is why we have to support out local local small film houses. We lost one and it sucks. If you have one, and like good films that are not repetitive drivel, go once in a while.

Re:That's it, I quit humanity

[Omestes]

Blade Runner was a huge improvement over the original story.

In your, completely subjective, opinion at least. I disagree.

That said, I see Blade Runner and DADoES as separate things, and enjoy both of them roughly equally for completely different reasons. Blade Runner was a stylistic master piece, with pretty much perfect scene making and acting. DADoES was a tilted tragi-comedy with a brooding philosophical bent, and the trademark Philip Dick ambiguity. The story was much much more intellectually satisfying, and pulled off intelligent better (unlike the movies silly unicorn thing), but, like much of Dick's writing, is a bit hit or miss. The story's world comes off more like a sketch than a completed thing. The movie makes up for this in spades, but at the expense of intellectual depth.

Blade Runner, though, is the second best Dick adaptation (After A Scanner Darkly), and is a brilliant film on its own. If I was stuck on a desert island and could only have one, I would ponder how arbitrary this whole scenario is, and then pick the story.

Its pretty much the same way I see the LoTR trilogy, the books and the movies are very different beasts, and can be judged separately. It isn't really an either/or thing.