Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Sci-Fi Books Media Movies

Please No, Not a Blade Runner Sequel 585

bowman9991 submitted a story that ought to make even the most stone-hearted amongst you cry. He says "Travis Wright, one of the writers behind Eagle Eye, has been working on a sequel to Ridley Scott's Sci-Fi classic Blade Runner. Script proposals have explored the nature of the off-world colonies, what happens to the Tyrell Corporation in the wake of its founder's death, and what would become of Rachel. Travis said he intends to write a script 'with or without anyone's blessings.' Director Ridley Scott appears interested in a sequel too. At Comic-Con in 2007 Ridley said, 'If you have any scripts, you know where to send them.' It's doubtful he'll have time anytime soon though. He's already stated his next two science fiction films will be an adaptation of Aldous Huxley's Brave New Word with Leonardo DiCaprio and an adaptation of Joe Haldeman's The Forever War."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Please No, Not a Blade Runner Sequel

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:26AM (#26638257)

    How about you devote all the energy, time, and effort that you would have put into doing yet another ill-advised sequel or remake into writing something ORIGINAL? Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs, or Slumdog Millionaire. At the very least, you'll be able to sleep at night. Do you really want to die being best known as the "asshole who wrote that god-awful sequel to Blade Runner"?

    And, on a related note, if you're a filmmaker and have ever thought to yourself "Hey, I bet a remake of 'It's a Wonderful Life' starring Ice Cube and some sassy kids would be great!" please, dear God, stay out of Hollywood.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:28AM (#26638299)

      Do you really want to die being best known as the "asshole who wrote that god-awful sequel to Blade Runner"?

      Depends on how many million I made off that movie.

      Myself, I'll wait for the Final Ultimate Director's Cut Armageddon Release of this one.

      • Uwe Boll (Score:5, Funny)

        by dazedNconfuzed ( 154242 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @02:26PM (#26642013)

        Depends on how many million I made off that movie.

        Uwe? is that you?

    • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:41AM (#26638485) Journal

      Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs, or Slumdog Millionaire.

      You list three good original movies but I counter that there is so much more to them than just needed money to make. Look at the directors/writers: Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino & Danny Boyle respectively. Now look at those three directors/writers names and notice how they rarely--if ever--attach themselves to bad projects. I think the three movies you listed were kind of like pet projects of these directors and there's not a lot of these great movies laying around just waiting to receive funding with the vision that these three movies you listed had.

      You think you have a better idea but these studios have one directive: make money. And that's what they'll do & they'll do it better than you would. This isn't art, this is business. You aren't going to be taken seriously if you point Resevoir Dogs that made $147,839 on opening weekend in the states or Momento that made $235,488 on opening weekend in the states. Those amounts of money are a blip on the radar to what a franchise name makes them within three days.

      • by Justtaint ( 301311 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @11:56AM (#26639545)

        Reservoir Dogs opened in a whopping 19 theaters making that a respectable $7781 per theater. Memento opened in 11 theaters, making $21,408 per theater. Your point is still valid since neither movie was ever wide released (Memento made it into 531 theaters, RD only 61), but to only point to opening weekend numbers is almost meaningless. As a recent example, Gran Torino only made $271,720 on opening weekend, but has gone on to gross over $100M. Just because a movie opens in limited release does not mean it won't end up making money.

        • by rgviza ( 1303161 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @02:23PM (#26641969)

          Blade Runner made $4,749 average per theater opening weekend, which in inflated dollars (as of 1992 when Reservoir Dogs opened) is $6899.50, less than Quentin Tarantino's pet project, per theatre.

          However it went on to gross 32m over it's lifetime (domestically), but cost 14m to make. At release it was considered a spectacular failure.

          Theater by theater RD was more profitable. I don't believe that the idea that Ridley Scott would make this his pet project and do it right is very far fetched at all. The bar is set pretty damn high though... The effects STILL look good, the acting was great, and the music is out of this world. It's a stunning, hypnotic film. I have the director's cut and still watch it periodically.

          One of the most beautiful movies ever made... I have the feeling that the only way a sequel would get made is if Ridley Scott financed it. No studio in their right mind would touch it, as is often the case with the most worthwhile movies.


          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by mattack2 ( 1165421 )

            Terminator 3 was made without James Cameron and IMHO, was an entertaining movie that continued the story in an interesting way. I avoided it for a long time for this same kind of reason -- not made by the originator, but eventually watched it on DVD and liked it. (Not as much as the previous two, but still very entertaining.)

            There's also "Terminator Salvation" coming out this year and oh my god Terminator 5 already scheduled for 2011. We can't know how good these are of course.

            I also think that the Termi

      • by Ralph Spoilsport ( 673134 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @12:35PM (#26640197) Journal
        Yeah. Right. Then explain why they were about to put Slumgdog Millionaires out to pasture on DVD until word got out that it was getting serious Oscar attention?

        Your post is the typical ignorant apology for Business As Usual we hear sheeple bleat every other day.

        Your theory leads to hive mind and idiocracy, as one never goes broke underestimating the intelligence or the taste of the average american.

        The entertainment industry is one of the single greatest blocks to genuine human progress.


        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by cayenne8 ( 626475 )
          "Yeah. Right. Then explain why they were about to put Slumgdog Millionaires out to pasture on DVD until word got out that it was getting serious Oscar attention? "

          Hmm...well, from the previews, and what little bit I've heard about the movie...doesn't sound very interesting.

          No explosions at all that I could see....


          But seriously...it doesn't look that interesting. I read a bit about the movie in wikipedia [wikipedia.org], it appears to happen in Mumbai (somewhere in India I guess)...and it says that about 1/3 of the d

      • by sorak ( 246725 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @01:12PM (#26640843)

        This isn't art, this is business.

        Excellent point. If you want something artistic and original, go see an indie film. If you want something high budget, with mainstream appeal, go see "Blade Runner 2: Wrath of the Electric Sheep".

    • by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:51AM (#26638591) Homepage Journal

      yet another ill-advised sequel or remake into writing something ORIGINAL? Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs

      Reservoir Dogs is a remake of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_on_Fire_(1987_film) [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by roskakori ( 447739 )

        Reservoir Dogs is a remake of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_on_Fire_(1987_film) [wikipedia.org]

        According to the IMDB FAQ [imdb.com] there seems to be some disagreement on this:

        Is this film a remake?
        [...] [T]here are clear similarities. Both films deal with a robbery, and feature a warehouse rendez-vous spot, a climactic Mexican stand-off, and the relationship between a veteran thief and an undercover cop, but Lung fu fong wan deals mostly with events leading to the robbery, while Reservoir Dogs is famously about the aftermath

    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      nobody in hollywierd can write anything original. The past 2 years and the next 4 will be full of remakes. Cripes they are starting remakes at the point that it's getting ridiculous.

      I'm betting that we will probably see a remake of Star wars 3,4,5 within 10 years.

      Everything fresh I have seen is coming from Indie people. The films that were at Sundance and the other film festivals that are NOT studio entries were fantastic.

      But no, Hollywierd wont make anything new, If they can remake it or do a sequel

      • Think that's worse than making stupid sequels of movies that weren't good in the first place, aka "cinema of the 90s"?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cvd6262 ( 180823 )

      Or "rebooting" existing franchises....

      Let's see, Bond? Check. Batman? Check. Star Trek? Check(1)? Friday 13th? Check. Am I forgetting anything?

      (1) Yeah, more of a prequel than a reboot, but watch: The cannon will be altered by this installment.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      "How about you devote all the energy, time, and effort that you would have put into doing yet another ill-advised sequel or remake into writing something ORIGINAL?"

      Most of what is original isn't if you looked hard enough and had enough time. There are only so many themes that have wide enough commercial or financial appeal to a general audience. Where you can see this a lot is in video games: Early video games were much more original then later ones. People I think tend to forget that the expense of doi

      • by lymond01 ( 314120 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @12:19PM (#26639929)

        As you get older, less and less is original. "Original" work is generally (as the initial poster and then the child posts pointed out) something you haven't heard of yet. Stick around for a few decades and you'll realize just about every song you hear, every movie you see, every book you read, you have heard, seen, and read before in some fashion.

        But don't give up hope: there may be no original plots, but a story is all in the telling, and THAT can be original.

    • by philspear ( 1142299 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @12:13PM (#26639833)

      Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs, or Slumdog Millionaire.

      Thanks man! You've just given me ideas for my next three movies, Memento 2, Reservoir Dogs 2, and Slumdog Millionaire 2!

  • by Psmylie ( 169236 ) * on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:27AM (#26638275) Homepage
    "Travis Wright, one of the writers behind Eagle Eye, has been working on a sequel to Ridley Scott's Sci-Fi classic Blade Runner."

    Go ahead. I write fanfics, too.

    • Aye. And while I know nothing about your writing skills, I am absolutely confident that you would do better than Travis Wright, based upon his work from Eagle Eye. Eagle Eye was a giant steaming pile of garbage with virtually nothing to recommend it in any respect. The dialogue was terrible, and the plot worse. Travis Wright should be locked up and never allowed access to a pen, computer, pencil, crayons, or anything else that he might use to right with ever again.
  • Super Suck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Irish_Samurai ( 224931 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:27AM (#26638287)

    Without a Phillip K. Dick story to bastardize, this script could go into turbo-shitty land really fast.

  • by Seakip18 ( 1106315 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:28AM (#26638293) Journal

    I don't understand...are they fighting in an arena? Are they fishing for sequels? I'm confused. Unless Taco didn't have the 20 seconds to double check the headline for a typo.

  • Highlander (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff ( 680366 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:29AM (#26638319)
    Please take a lesson from Highlander: there can be only one.
  • Heinlein, please? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by R2.0 ( 532027 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:30AM (#26638339)

    Since Scott has a track record of putting out decent science fiction cinema, could we PLEASE get him to do some Heinlein? Or, if that's not "percussive" enough, some Niven-Pournelle? A shortened version of A Mote in God's Eye should have enough bang-bang to keep the kiddies happy, and cool aliens that turn from "advanced peaceful society" to "Freakish monster hoards" by the end.

    • For Niven-Pournelle, give me a movie version of Lucifer's Hammer. Comet hits Earth, doesn't destroy the world, just civilization - you know, two weeks of no deliveries to your local grocery store or gas station. As they say, hilarity ensues.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by phorest ( 877315 )

        I JUST got that message from Amazon today:

        Hello from Amazon.com.
        We're writing about the order you placed on January 27 2009 08:31 PST (Order# 003-4511132-3261008).
        Delivery of your package has been delayed due to weather or a natural disaster. UPS will deliver the package as soon as possible. We apologize for this unavoidable delay and appreciate your patience. The items listed below are included in this shipment (Tracking Id '1Z415@@@@@@@@@@@'):

    • Careful, if you ask for Heinlein you'll just get The Puppet Masters starring Tom Cruise.

    • Seconded. I'd give both my right hands to see good CGI Moties.
    • by fermion ( 181285 )
      He has a lot of good books, but it would be hard for hollywood to make them into a two hour film. Short stories are better.

      His later works could be made indie of hollywood. Job, A comedy of manner comes to mind. Friday would sell tickets, or To Sail Beyond the Sunset. Some action, compressible.

      I think we are all waiting for A Stranger in a Strange Land miniseries.

  • by onion2k ( 203094 ) * on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:31AM (#26638353) Homepage

    I don't get the whole "this sequel is terrible, it shouldn't have been made!" thing. You don't have to watch it. The fact it's been made doesn't affect the original in any way whatsoever. Chill out.

    Besides, there's an outside chance it could be really good. The Bladerunner idea is a great starting point.

    • by Aladrin ( 926209 )

      They're under the (mistaken) assumption that the author would write something they would like, instead, if they didn't write this.

      They're pretty much totally wrong, of course. If there was something better they could do, they'd already be working on it.

    • by ubrgeek ( 679399 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:50AM (#26638581)
      I disagree. For folks that have a passion about a world created by a movie, then a crappy sequel taints that world. For some of the examples that have been posted, having a sequel to Highlander (even with the esteemed Mario Van Peeples *ugh*) ruined the story by shredding the conclusion of the first. "There can be only one, except for this other guy, so make that two. Yeah, only two. Unless we jump to the future, if that's cool?" The fourth Indiana Jones was so terrible, I refuse to accept the stories as anything more than a trillogy. Some movies are as good as they are because of how they end. A sequel - in the case of a story that wasn't designed to be multiple episodes (see "Rings, Lord of the") seems to eliminate the important element of Conclusion that completes the first movie. Exactly what would a sequel to Close Encounters of the Third Kind bring us?
    • by isecore ( 132059 )

      The fact it's been made doesn't affect the original in any way whatsoever. Chill out.

      Except that it's mere existence will taint the original. We who haven't seen a godawful sequel will still have to content with all the zombies out there running around shouting things like "the second one was soooo much better".

      If there's only one movie, it will stand on it's own. As soon as a classic movie is turned into a franchise, then the quality and what made the movie a classic will disappear - no matter if you ignor

    • by neoform ( 551705 ) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @11:01AM (#26638735) Homepage

      I think it's more about soiling the memory of something good.

      It's kinda like when you meet a hot girl, you hit it off, then your friend tells you she has a penis.

    • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @11:01AM (#26638737) Homepage

      dude... did you even watch Doom, how about Judge Dredd?

      People committed suicide in the theaters over how bad those movies were.

      Riots in the streets for 12 days, total dead was 15,000 opening weekend alone.

      Do you really want that shitty of a movie to happen again?

      DO YOU?!!?!?!

  • Forever War.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sporkinum ( 655143 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:31AM (#26638359)

    I guess we can thank GW for starting the forever war.

    But seriously, I hope they don't fuck it up. One of my favorites!

  • ... let's just go big and get Uwe Boll [petitiononline.com] in on it.
  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:35AM (#26638403) Journal

    Please No, Net a Blade Runner Sequel

    Who cares at this point, really?

    Disclaimers: I'm not an economist, I love Philip K. Dick & I could care less for Blade Runner the movie.

    I see it as there being finite number of movies Hollywood has the money to make each year. I'd rather see a Blade Runner Sequel than the fourth or fifth Austin Powers movie (can you believe that Myers is on contract to make two more?) so why not? I mean, like the article says, the novel is out there [wikipedia.org], it's not like if they transform that story into a movie or make their own script it's going to affect my perception of the original Blade Runner or Philip K. Dick novel. What the article fails to mention is there are actually four Blade Runner novels ( Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night [wikipedia.org] (1996), Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon [wikipedia.org] (2000)). Go ahead, turn them all into movies, you know the fans will reward you for it with piles of cash. It's better than Legally Blonde: Supreme Court Captain!

    I think there have been other movies based on this novel--what of Spielberg's AI? Was that not a butchered version of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? also? I don't see this as quite cut and dried as CmdrTaco ("don't-ruin-perfect?"--I would hardly call any of this material perfect). I mean, I bitch and moan about movies like Snakes on a Plane & The Transporter 8 as I read great novels by great sci-fi writers like Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle [wikipedia.org] (which, although controversial, I opine would make a fine movie)--why not use these great stories that are already out there to allow good directors to create (potentially) great films?

    I like to watch original movies from Warner Independent Pictures [wikipedia.org] and Fox Searchlight Pictures [wikipedia.org] but the public and I seem to disagree about where the money in Hollywood should be spent so why do I care that they rehash old crap and dilute brand names when that's how the market rewards them? Can you be critical of them making money? Is that not why they're in that business? Whore yourselves out for all I care, I'm not going to watch it unless there's a Rifftrax for it.

    And let's not forget that there are good examples of this actually working out there like The Shining, The Shawshank Redemption, The Lord of the Rings, even Batman Begins & The Dark Knight grossly overshadow Batman Forever & Batman & Robin.

    So I ask you, why do you care? You aren't forced to see the movie and if you do, it's going to give you something you love and cherish the most: something to bitch vindictively about.

    • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      Actually, I would MUCH rather them make "Legally Blonde 5: In Her 30's, Tits Starting to Drag Now" than "Blade Runner 2." Why? Because a sequel can actually tarnish an original, that's why. It's easy to forget the genuine creepiness of a movie like "A Nightmare on Elm Street" when it's buried under a ton of awful sequels--turning the once-intimidating Freddy Krueger into little more than a glorified stand-up comedian. It's easy to forget that "Friday the 13th" was actually a pretty clever twist on "Hallowee
    • by PotatoFarmer ( 1250696 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @11:07AM (#26638815)

      I think there have been other movies based on this novel--what of Spielberg's AI? Was that not a butchered version of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? also?

      AI was based on a Brian Aldiss story - Super-Toys Last All Summer Long

  • Already done. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Stone Rhino ( 532581 ) <mparke&gmail,com> on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:36AM (#26638411) Homepage Journal
    It was already done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_(film) [wikipedia.org]

    It was written by David Peoples, who co-wrote the script for Blade Runner. By his own admission, he considers Soldier to be a "sidequel"/spiritual successor to Blade Runner.[1] It also obliquely references various elements of stories written by Philip K. Dick (who wrote the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, on which Blade Runner is based), or film adaptations thereof.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      If this new movie bears twice as much relation to Blade Runner as Soldier did (fine movie, btw) then it can hardly do any harm to the original (even in our memories.)

    • by mlwmohawk ( 801821 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @11:28AM (#26639125)

      The movie Soldier is an amazing movie. Not that it is perfect, by any means, but Kurt Russel has about 12 spoken lines, but carries the whole movie by body language and facial expressions.

      I am a closet Kurt Russel fan, and wish, in a better world, he got better parts. His acting is cartoonish because he gets cartoonish parts.

      Similarly, I was joking with my son a few weeks ago about the movie "Tropic Thunder" and Robert Downey Jr. It is a awesome that Robert Downey has such a screwed up personal life, it means his talent and ability are relegated to "fun" movies like "Iron Man" and "Tropic Thunder" as opposed to boring movies like "Chocolat," "Cider House Rules," or "The Ice Storm." :-)

  • Net a Blade Runner Sequel? huh? Is "Net" the name of the proposed movie? Odd, if so.

  • by scourfish ( 573542 ) <scourfish@y a h o o . c om> on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:45AM (#26638509)
    We've already tried it - ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkalating agent and potent script treatment; it created a plothole so lethal the script was dead before it even left the table.
  • by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:47AM (#26638533) Homepage Journal
    Calm down, everybody. There's no evidence that George Lucas will be involved.
  • I've always been interested in the Gaff character.

    Like .. how does he make those wonderful origami? oy!

    Also he has one of the best quotes from the movie, from any movie.

  • I'm a huge P.K. Dick fan. I've read most everything he wrote (not all his work is great, but there are plenty of gems).

    And I'm a huge Scott fan. When I saw Alien in its theatrical release, it changed my life--I was stunned by its greatness.

    But I have to say that "Blade Runner" needs the Voice Over. The director's cut requires help--the heavy editing and VO were desperation moves, but correct ones.

    I consider myself a cinema buff, not a member of the great unwashed with no sci-fi exposure for context

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Not sure if you need to do this to get it, but if you get the "Blade Runner Five-disk Ultimate Collector's Edition" (yes, that's really what it's called, and yes, I have it), it includes the original US theatrical release, with the voice-over.

      I was never sure about the voice-over, myself. I saw that version first, in theatres, back in the day, and I thought the voice-over was annoying, a bit too "Magnum P.I.", clubbing me with context. When I saw the "director's cut" later on, I liked it better, but of cou

  • Recommendation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fnord666 ( 889225 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:55AM (#26638639) Journal

    one of the writers behind Eagle Eye

    They say this like it's a positive recommendation or something. It's not.

  • In fact, lets go the whole hog and make a Prequel.

    We can have an early prototype replicant, maybe with big ears and a lisp; a hot chick - playing the original Sean Young; an evil corporate manager who subverts the original scientists and managers, betraying them to turn a humanitarian Tyrell company into a defence contractor-corporation with a production line consisting solely of pleasure units and soldiers; and it wouldn't be complete without a ton of modern, glossy CGI effects - no dark shadows and defini

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @10:58AM (#26638685)

    To disperse some wisdom.

    You see, grasshopper, story is like tea leaves. When you have good tea leaves, you will have good tea. You take tea leaves, you take hot water, and you have good tea. You have wonderful tea. You savour tea, and you like tea so much that you think, you want more tea. So you take the leaves out of the water and save them, then you bring hot water again and you pour it over the tea leaves. But alas, no good tea. It tastes stale and bland. The flavor all gone.

    If you want another cup of tea, you have to find new tea leaves. Using the old one will only give you bland, tasteless and generally worthless tea.

    • Terminator... (Score:3, Insightful)

      Terminator II was 100 times better than Terminator I, but Terminator III was 100 times worse.

      What does this mean? It's all about the script, not the material.

  • The universe of Blade Runner is ripe for a short stories sequel... ;)

  • by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @11:32AM (#26639211) Journal

    I have given up hope to see any worthwhile SF movie, in this century. After the 70's, they have been progressively dumbed down. One of my favourite SF movies was "The Andromeda strain", from 1970 (IIRC, won't bother checking with IMDB). It was good, hard-ish SF without unnecessary drama and NO brainfarts. Then they decided to remake it as a two-part mini series last year, and obviously, they HAD TO dumb it down. Because we all know that people today are dumber than they were 30+ years ago... right? I don't hope to see such underrated gems as was "Logan's run", "Demon seed", "2001: A space odyssey" etc.

    I blame the "Star Wars" saga for this. Oh, I can hear a rumble, as if a billion slashdotters rose up in horror (I have some karma to burn), but that's what I believe: "Star Wars" had little to do with SF - it should be called a costume western - and it didn't make your neurons work. But it was grand, it had interesting special effects. In brief, it was entertaining without taxing your brain. Just like any James Bond movie does. And the producers of Star Wars made gobs of money, and so, that became the blueprint for future SF movies - make them dumb and entertaining.

    So today we only have pseudo-SF movies, like "Minority Report", "Battlestar Galactica" and so forth (boy, am I going to be modded down today!) but whenever someone tries to make a movie even slightly intellectually challenging, like "A.I." he/she gets vilified and suffers dismal box-office failure.

    So, fuck the movie industry and fuck the dumb audience. I have no hope for a good SF movie anymore. I'll stick to books - Stephen Baxter and others are still churning good, brain-stimulating hard-SF worth my time.

    • by plasmacutter ( 901737 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @11:36AM (#26639275)

      but A.I. did suck.

      The ending was a massive digression and the premise, while dark, was not brought to the levels of, say, elfen lied, which did a much better job of portraying a dark, dissociated view of human corruption.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        "A.I." stirred in me an ocean of questions about consciousness, the self and sentience. Many of the conclusions and doubts I have today, have their roots in the thoughts that the movie has induced in me. Maybe it could have been better - and the short story by Aldiss is also great, but it has a different "bent" than the movie. BOTH are worthwhile, in my opinion. And we all know that opinions are like hemorrhoids, as every asshole has them, including me and you - but alas, the situation is similar to the "Bl

    • by NitroWolf ( 72977 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @02:16PM (#26641887)

      So today we only have pseudo-SF movies, like "Minority Report", "Battlestar Galactica" and so forth (boy, am I going to be modded down today!) but whenever someone tries to make a movie even slightly intellectually challenging, like "A.I." he/she gets vilified and suffers dismal box-office failure.

      Did you just seriously say AI was intellectually challenging? There was nothing "intellectually challenging" about AI. It was simply the worst SF movie ever made, and that's saying a lot. In fact, it was SF in name only - you talk about costume western that is Star Wars (and I don't necessarily disagree) - AI is nothing more than fluffy drama tear jerker that tried WAYYY too hard with ridiculously unbelievable characters, plot holes from here to the moon and horrible ... absolutely HORRIBLE acting. There was absolutely NOTHING redeeming about AI, and the fact that you hold it up as something to be admired (intellectually challenging? Seriously?) leads me to believe you have absolutely no idea what good SF is. Your credibility in that department is pretty much shot.

  • by meist3r ( 1061628 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @11:49AM (#26639441)
    Shia LaBeouf as Rick Deckard
    Mylie Cyrus as Rachael
    Steve Carrell as Roy Batty
    Michael Myers as Bryant

    Shot by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Soundtrack by The Jonas Brothers.
  • by ChienAndalu ( 1293930 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @12:04PM (#26639679)

    This guy [imdb.com] is doing Neuromancer.

  • Ain't nothing wrong with doing a sequel. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" was the third movie in a trilogy, and was by far the best. It often takes several passes through a creative landscape before all the elements find their place and the whole thing jells.

    Sequels don't have to have the same characters or plot. It can be enough to just take the basic idea and feel of the first movie, and run with it in a new direction.

    For example, I'd love to see someone explore the idea of replication much deeper. What if Replicants weren't time-limited, but made perpetual instead? What if memory could be captured and re-implanted in one generation of Replicant after another, so that consciousness would span several lifetimes/bodies? What if anyone could make a copy of themselves, on demand? Say you want to try what it feels like to jump out of an airplane -- without a parachute. Do you make a replica, and then toss yourself?

    A sequel doesn't have to be bad....

  • by Ralph Spoilsport ( 673134 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @12:44PM (#26640335) Journal
    and an older model than Rachel. So, IIRC, he shouldn't have survived much beyond his job taking out Roy and his crew.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 ) *

      It's never explicitly stated.. and even if he was the script suggests he was a newer model newer - Rachel was a prototype for giving replicants memories, but Deckard also had memories.. which makes him newer.

  • by TomRC ( 231027 ) on Wednesday January 28, 2009 @05:07PM (#26644585)

    What would it take to make a good (or even great) Blade Runner sequel?

    The original became a cult hit mainly because (a) it had an interesting, well textured setting (b) it projected a very clear style or mood that fit well with (c) an interesting moral question about what makes one "human" that is ultimately left up to the viewer, (d) while including enough action directly related to the question to keep it interesting on first viewing.

    I think a good sequel would need to (a) replicate and build on the setting (b) choose a DIFFERENT question, or perhaps deeper examination of the original moral question to examine; and (c) fit the style/mood to that examination - and of course (d) driving it all with some cool action scenes.

    Forget the off-world colonies - it's far more interesting to look at how alien Earth would have become, to our eyes. The original looked at an organic mix of decaying remnants of today's cities threaded and overshadowed by ultra-tech future stuff, and invaded by "foreigners" (apparently many natives having moved on to the off-world colonies?) OK, what is happening elsewhere? We saw a city apparently sapped by climate turned hot and wet - global warming has run amuk.

    How's that affecting the rest of the country/world? Drought-ruined farm lands? Chicago by an empty Great Lakes basin (water mostly diverted to the new agricultural band across Canada, just a few big pipelines running to the city), surrounded by dusty desert, maybe growing food in towers? Ice age in Europe? London flooded? Expanding seas flooded the Mediterranean and turned lots of cities into Venice equivalents (and sunk Venice itself)? But now a dam is built across the Straits of Gibraltar - generating power as water is let in to replace evaporation, but not letting the sea fall to it's old levels? Has there been a mini-nuke-war in the middle east or maybe Pakistan-India? Those sorts of things would be interesting to look at. (And the nuke war assumption, shown in a few quick scenes, might serve as a warning to today's bickering countries with nukes or ambitions.) Instead of sitting in one city, the sequel should get out and around the world.

    What interesting moral question might be examined? How about a serious re-examination of Hollywood's constant droning "it's good to age and die" formula? Perhaps the hero is struggling to put together enough money to replace his failing synth-organs, even as he moves through the richest and poorest levels of society? How about effectively immortal wealthy parents who keep their kids "young and innocent" - a 43 year old kid that looks 7 leading a secret life while playing a role to keep the parents happily self-deceived? Hmm - that edges on "What is adulthood? What is perversion? Is it more perverse to "force" someone to be a child forever, or for that "child" to behave as the adult they mentally are? [It doesn't have to turn the movie into child-porn - create a scenario in which a "straight-adult" hero is tempted but resists out of old-fashioned moral scruples he's not sure really apply any more - controversial enough.]

    Maybe have the hero be someone arriving back from the off-world colonies, so we see this strange new world through his eyes - the tech is mostly not strange to him, but the culture would appear involuted and perverted, coming from a more straight-forward off-world culture where kids grow up fast because they're needed.

A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle