Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Movies Sci-Fi

Blade Runner Sequels and Prequels Happening 334

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blade Runner Sequels and Prequels Happening

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Thursday March 03, 2011 @10:31AM (#35368364)

    You know, I was watching one of the behind-the-scenes extras on the "Get Low" [] DVD the other day. For those who haven't seen it, "Get Low" is a quiet little movie--low-budget, not a lot of hoopla. But it has a suprisingly powerful screenplay and great performances from Robert Duvall and Bill Murray. Anyway, the producer points out that, even with a very powerful script and great leads attached, it still took over 8 years to get the movie made. He explained that Hollywood has become so fixated on sequels, prequels, franchises, remakes, and comic-book/TV adaptations that getting funding even for a small-budget *original* film, with no potential for a sequel or merchandising, has become a nightmare. Hollywood may celebrate these kinds of movies at Oscar time, but getting a studio to put up even a relatively trivial amount of money for them is almost impossible unless you can attach some hot A-list leads.

    And that is why we're treated to a stream of endless rapes of once-great franchises/TV shows/comic books. It's why a 60-year-old Harrison Ford is running around fighting fucking aliens with a bullwhip looking for a goddamn crystal skull, while Steven Spielberg is off-camera bathing in a pile of cash. It's why we get sequels to 25-year-old R-rated franchises with PG-13 ratings and once-great stars just there to collect a paycheck (yep, I'm looking at you Bruce Willis). It's why everyone who has produced even a mediocre comic book superhero has Hollywood fawning over them, while great original scripts go right into the trash bin.

    And now it's why we're going to get a shitty PG-13 action-oriented prequel/sequel to one of the great adult science fiction films of all time. It's something no one asked for. It will tarnish the original. And it will suck. But all Hollywood hears is "sequel" and so it's getting the green light.

    • by naz404 ( 1282810 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @10:46AM (#35368578) Homepage
      I found the official sequel, Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human [] by K.W. Jeter (one of Philip K. Dick's good friends and the guy who coined the term "steampunk" []) to be a pretty decent read. Why don't they option that?
      • Because this is Hollywood. "Good" (or even "decent") is irrelevant.

    • by Damek ( 515688 ) <adam@da[ ].org ['mek' in gap]> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @10:53AM (#35368682) Homepage

      And people keep paying for them. I keep reading how Hollywood is "fixated" on this stuff or has some sort of problem, but people keep buying what they're selling.

      Also, this stuff doesn't tarnish anything. Robocop's still a great movie. The original Star Wars films are still.. well, what they were. The Lord of the Rings books are still great books. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep wasn't tarnished by Blade Runner. I should know, I read the book far too late, twenty years after I started reading sci-fi and ten years after I saw Blade Runner. Dune wasn't tarnished by any of its film adaptations, and for me, the Lynch wasn't tarnished by the so-so SyFy versions. And Herbert's novels weren't tarnished by his kin's prequel novels.

      People like to revisit the places they've been before, with a little variation. You may as well complain, "why do genre novelists write so many series?" I have no freaking clue. But people buy them.

      Now, what I'd like to see is a film adaptation of The Demolished Man or The Stars My Destination by Bester. Also, any of MacLeod's or Reynolds' work, but then that would be a bit difficult...

      • by JWW ( 79176 )

        Herbert's novels weren't tarnished by his kin's prequel novels because I've chosen not to read the :-).

        But, yes, I agree completely. The "tarnishing" of something is largely in the eyes of the beholder.

      • by Creepy ( 93888 )
        While I can't say it about most of these movies, I vastly prefer Blade Runner the movie to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep the book. The mood organ was kinda silly, IMO (ooh, tune yourself to watch TV no matter what's, yeah), though I know it was there to blur the lines between humans and replicants (or to show just how high Dick was at the time).
        • by CFTM ( 513264 )

          Obviously, this is just an opinion, but I couldn't disagree with you more. In my mind, the book was far superior. The book touches on lots of themes that are completely glossed over or ignored in the movie and many of those themes were central to Dick's writing. The first of which, has to do with Dekkard's relative place in society. In the book, Dekkard is a less-than-ordinary-man who has one last shot, he's desperate and lost. In the movie, he's a replicant....

          So in essence, we have a book that was ab

        • Dick lived a speed freak lifestyle, but his liver processed speed so it didn't effect him. He didn't know it at the time. Or at least that's what he said in interviews.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Seumas ( 6865 )

        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?

        • I didn't talk to an old girlfriend for a week when she adamantly refused to believe that Johnny Cash covered a song by that "shitty band Nine Inch Nails" and insisted that Trent Reznor's rendition was an inferior copy that ruined the song.

    • I hear you. That's why I stopped going to the theatre.

      If there's anything I'm proud of, it's the fact that I vote with my dollars. If a restaurant is crap, I don't eat there. If a corporation does something that upsets me, I don't complain, just don't buy from *that* company. I will instead direct all my dollars at the companies that do right by my book. I'm just one guy. My discretionary income by my lonesome won't sway any company, but imagine if millions of folks decide that they're sick of seeing t

      • by CFTM ( 513264 )

        I wouldn't argue that the studio execs are secure in the knowledge that people will buy their products, because they're not. It's why, so often, they rehash old franchises instead of taking a risk on a new franchise. The old franchise has demonstrated an ability to return 50% on investment, thus back to the well we go!

    • ...with PG-13 ratings...

      What's the rating got to do with anything? That's like saying that you won't watch Toy Story 3 because it's rated G and not R.

      Saying Fuck every other word, showing exploding heads and having tits on screen constantly isn't the recipe for a good movie.

      • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:40AM (#35369300) Homepage

        Saying Fuck every other word, showing exploding heads and having tits on screen constantly isn't the recipe for a good movie.

        No, but it's a good start. ;-)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Seumas ( 6865 )

        Editing your content and story to be consumable by little kids isn't the recipe for a good movie, either.

        Yippee ki-yay [ . . . ] . . . !

      • having tits on screen constantly isn't the recipe for a good movie.

        Yes, it is, but I digress.

        PG-13 is the marketing sweet spot that most studios shoot for. Teens can see it, parents won't be bored, and the underaged kids that are dragged along will probably forget what they saw ten minutes after the credits roll.

        PG-13 from a filmmaking perspective usually means one of two things:

        - This should by all rights be an R rated film in terms of the theme/sex/violence/cussing/etc. but they dialed it back enough to get under the line. They'll throw all the good bits back in wi

      • by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

        This is about sequals and prequals to Bladerunner, not to movies in general.
        You think Bladerunner would be well-served by a PG-13 rewrite?

    • You, sir, get a +6.
    • Get Low is still a 7 million dollar movie. I think a better example of overcoming Hollywood is Primer, which is a great sci-fi film that was made for $7000. So the movie industry could have made one-thousand Primers for the cost of a "low-budget" movie like Get Low.

      Even worse is "127 Hours" which should have cost a few thousand to make but somehow cost $18 mil.
      • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *

        "Get Low" is a period piece with prominent leads. Yes, there are certainly a lot cheaper movies out there. But it's not realistic to think you're going to make a major release for under about the $1 million mark. Movies like Primer, Clerks, etc. usually are only able to get away with such low budgets because everyone on the film works for free or for a share in any profits (i.e. not counting any labor costs of cast and crew as part of the production) and they have relatively simple locations (i.e. not a per

      • by CFTM ( 513264 )

        Primer may have been made for $7000, but many corners were necessarily cut to make that budget :)

        I would be very surprised to hear that they paid for any shoot locations or acquired requisite insurance coverage before shooting.

      • How the hell does a movie that consists almost entirely of one guy with his hand stuck under a rock cost $18 million???

    • by ari_j ( 90255 )
      I agree with your criticism, but not your response to the situation. I just skip the shitty movies and, if that means that I only go to one movie a year, then so be it. I also don't think that Blade Runner sequels or prequels can tarnish the original. They may dilute its good name, but they can't tarnish the original. Only actually [] messing [] with the original can hope to accomplish that, but even that does not tarnish the original, it only makes the untarnished original harder to get ahold of.
    • Since Blade Runner if one of the best films attempts to leach off of it are pathetic.

      However the film itself is not simply an adaptation of "do andorids dream of electric sheep". Instead it is steeped in other Philip K Dick books, like the atmosphere of post WWII pacific states of Asian-america found in the man in the high castle books. Likewise the ideas that healthy and wealthy humans have moved off world leaving behind a lower class society with pockets of wealth is found in other PKD themes. Most of

    • Thanks for telling me about this film, I'll go watch it now. I'll watch anything with Bill Murray in.
    • C'mon, it doesn't have to suck. If they can be respectful to the vision of the original, as well as add in a wacky next-door-neighbor and a girl's vollyball team shower scene, it should be fine. Our target market is a group of 17 year-old boys. Maybe we'll add in some groin kick shots, too, to pull in the "jackass" crowd. Honestly, you really don't have anything to worry about.

    • by pz ( 113803 )

      Don't forget that the adaptation of Blade Runner from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? involved tossing huge swaths of the story away, and substantially rewriting the rest. Where is the mood dialing? The Mercerism? The vet service? The artificial pets and envy of owners with real ones? The lead codpieces? The intrigue at the police station? The ludicrously weak plot device that there's a shadow police body entirely of replicants? Deckard's hallucinatory escape outside the city?

      Blade Runner was a

      • by Omestes ( 471991 ) <> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @01:36PM (#35370644) Homepage Journal

        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.

    • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @01:09PM (#35370354) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • The Kings Speech, Black Swan, True Grit, were all top grossing film and all original and good work.

        True Grit was a remake.

    • Hey now, that ain't fair to Willis. Give the man credit he did tell people not to watch Die Hard 4 because they had cut it all to hell trying to get the Spiderman teen dollar (I mean WTF? Spiderman teens aren't going to see Die Hard). I mean when you can't even say the catch phrase because of the rating? Crapola.

      But I have to agree that most of the shit coming out of the Hollywood crap fest is totally shitty rehashes of movies and shows that frankly had ran out of steam ages ago. The last decent action sequ

  • Ugh (Score:3, Funny)

    by eegad ( 588763 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @10:32AM (#35368368)

    Freaking Replicants.

  • by Utini420 ( 444935 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @10:33AM (#35368390)

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

    • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *

      Best subject line ever.

    • by grub ( 11606 )

      I'll give you nightmares: imagine if they get George Lucas to do these.
      • I'll give you nightmares: imagine if they get George Lucas to do these.

        Then we'll all know up-front not to watch it.

        And, seriously, except for re-hashing Star Wars, has Lucas actually been directly involved in making anything lately? IMDB [] shows his producer credits as mostly related to Star Wars/Indiana Jones re-hashes.

        Thankfully, as a film-maker, Lucas seems to be more or less done doing anything besides collecting royalties.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I have seen things you people wouldn't believe in the original.

      Harrison Ford fighting killer androids.
      Flying cars shimmering over the Los Angeles distopia.

      All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time for a sequel.

  • <vader>



  • Yay! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @10:34AM (#35368402) Homepage

    Blade Runner is a superb film and a sequel is long overdue!

    Besides, what could possibly go wrong?

  • and no there was no conspiracy about a fifth repilicant, its called their budget would not allow it.

    Get the five disc collectors edition, watch the making of which is over four hours long. It smacks down most of the hair brained theories about why what happened, why something looked a certain way, and such.

    and oh yeah, only Olmos originally knew what he was saying, he made it up.

    As to the validity of making more. Sure, I don't want a re-make but a long time passed sequel would be nice and prequels don't n

  • Blade Runner is actually one of his lesser books. Philip has produced tons of great science-based fiction (and some fantasy): []

    The Man in the High Castle (1962)
    Martian Time-Slip (1964)
    The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch (1965)
    Dr. Bloodmoney, or How We Got Along After the Bomb (1965)
    Now Wait for Last Year (1966)
    Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968)
    Ubik (1969)
    Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said (1974)
    A Scanner Darkly (1977)
    A Maze of Death (1970)

    • by C_amiga_fan ( 1960858 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @10:45AM (#35368550)

      And short stories of course (not a complete list):
      1. Beyond Lies the Wub
      2. Roog
      3. Paycheck
      4. Second Variety (Screamers)
      5. Imposter
      6. The King of the Elves
      7. Adjustment Team
      8. Foster, You're Dead
      9. Upon the Dull Earth
      10. Autofac
      11. The Minority Report
      12. The Days of Perky Pat
      13. Precious Artifact
      14. A Game of Unchance
      15. We Can Remember It For You Wholesale (Total Recall)
      16. Faith of Our Fathers
      17. The Electric Ant
      18. A Little Something For Us Tempunauts
      19. The Exit Door Leads In
      20. Rautavaara's Case
      21. I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon
      And some other random ones - Fair Game, The Hanging Stranger, The Eyes have it; The Golden Man; The Turning Wheel; The Last of the Masters; The Father-Thing; Strange Eden; Tony and the Beetles; Null-O; To Serve the Master; Exhibit Piece; The Crawlers; Sales Pitch; Shell Game; Upon the Dull Earth; Foster, you're dead; Pay for the Printer; War Veteran; The Chromium Fence; Second Variety.

      • by dmatos ( 232892 )

        You should also boldify:

        3. Paycheck
        Confessions of a Crap Artist (Confessions d'un Bario, French)
        5. Impostor
        The Golden Man (Next)
        7. Adjustment Team (Adjustment Bureau, releasing soon)

        • by lxs ( 131946 )

          Paycheck was not made into a movie. It did not star Ben Affleck and it was not horrible!

        • by CFTM ( 513264 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @12:01PM (#35369560)

          Just an FYI, if you go in to the Adjustment Bureau expecting Adjustment Team you'll be quite disappointed. It's meant to be its own story but uses a similar entity to the adjustment team for controlling events. That's not to say it'll be either good or bad, just that it's really not intended to be a telling of a Dickian story.

      • I've said it before and I'll say it again. If all you know of him is the movies, then you don't know Dick.
    • Blade Runner is actually one of his lesser books. Philip has produced tons of great science-based fiction (and some fantasy):

      Er, Blade Runner wasn't one of his books at all. Perhaps you're thinking of:

      Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968)

      ...on which Blade Runner is loosely based (the electric sheep got cut).

      A Scanner Darkly (1977)

      Which got made into one of those rare and delicate creatures: a good film with Keanau Reeves in it.

    • I am glad to see PKD getting a little love here on /. While Blade Runner is one of the greatest movies ever made, it is definitely not much of a reflection of the vision of Philip K. Dick (which, as a side note, is a good thing, as the novel that Blade Runner is based off of is one of his weaker works). While many movies have been based off of his books, the only one I have seen that really captures the same feel that his novels induce is A Scanner Darkly. It is seriously awesome and worth checking out. As
  • Do you think they will try to use any of the original actors? I agree with most posts, seems like a bad idea.
    • A great BR sequel could really be made at this point with Charlie Sheen as he undergoes his bipolar-1 induced psychotic break. [A non-drug-related tragedy for which he goes untreated while serving as a source of entertainment for us all.] Assuming Rx = lithium for a moment, there can be lithium-free and fully lithiated performances from Charlie as he loses and gains sanity from acquiring some thing or reaching some place or something. His scenes before gaining sanity in the screenplay could be left as blank
  • by binarylarry ( 1338699 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @10:40AM (#35368484)

    I hope they'll make some movies exploring other areas of the Blade Runner universe. Recasting Deckard, the replicants, etc would be terrible.

    But the universe is awesome, I'd welcome more stories from there.

    • Deckard leads a crack team of Blade Runners (most of whom get killed in the second reel) to a colony world where they have to fight a whole nest of replicants!

      Be careful what you wish for...

    • I hope they'll make some movies exploring other areas of the Blade Runner universe

      Besides this one? []

      "Soldier" was not a great film, but it was interesting, and peripherally related to Blade Runner.

  • In other news.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Unka Willbur ( 1771596 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @10:44AM (#35368528)
    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,.
  • I *trust* Hollywood.... to fuck it up. Hollywood has not made a good film since "Fight Club". Leave Blade Runner alone. It's perfect as it is. What's next, a sequel to "Casablanca"? How about a prequel, where Rick is *in* Paris? God, when will it all end? Can someone please NUKE Hollywood to save us from them? It would be a public service to humanity. I didn't even bother going to the sequel to TRON (still haven't seen it, that's right), out of respect for the original. Hollywood, can you hear me? STOP RIGH

    • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      yeah you were right to not see the sequel to Tron. The script was pretty much 100% crap, clearly just there to provide a vehicle for the CGI.

    • I'd like them to film the sequel to The Passion of the Christ. Now that would be interesting.

      I can see the poster already. "Jesus II." "No man, no law, no war can stop him".
  • by Even on Slashdot FOE ( 1870208 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @10:44AM (#35368532)

    Can they get the rights to have the fictional band Priss and the Replicants in at least one of these? It would be hilarious for those of us that get the joke.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by tekrat ( 242117 )

      Don't forget to add some Boomers that look like "The Terminator". Really. Bubble Gum Crisis? That was like absolute proof that anime is just dreck that makes something "original" by copying from 9 different sources.

      Of course, the flipside to that was that "the Matrix" was a ripoff of 'Ghost in the Shell.'

  • by greg1104 ( 461138 ) <> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @10:44AM (#35368538) Homepage

    K. W. Jeter published two attempts at writing a sequel to Blade Runner, inspired by the movie rather than PKD's original novel. The Edge of Human [] and Replicant Night [] waver along the edge between mediocre and horrifying throughout. I have little hope for a movie to do better.

  • What ???? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @10:47AM (#35368592) Homepage

    Sequels and Prequels of Blade Runner, and Ridley Scott may or may not be involved???

    So, they're going to make generic sci-fi movies that loosely relate to Blade Runner, and that none of the fans of the original will care about seeing ... and people who didn't like/didn't see the original won't care about seeing.

    Who do they expect to be watching this? They better have damned good screen plays for this, or they're throwing money down a hole trying to capitalize on the legacy of a good movie only to find out they don't have an audience.

    This has all the potential to become a complete flop. I'll stick with my director's cut of the original unless I hear some really compelling reasons that this isn't going to be crap.

    • I think they expect the people who didn't watch the original, but have heard of it to go see their generic, Sci-Fi action piece, with a whole bunch of explosions and shit. And there's a huge audience for mindless crap in the theatres, especially mindless crap with some sort of name recognition.
      • I think they expect the people who didn't watch the original, but have heard of it to go see their generic, Sci-Fi action piece, with a whole bunch of explosions and shit. And there's a huge audience for mindless crap in the theatres, especially mindless crap with some sort of name recognition.

        Yeah, but that can backfire on them ... if they manage to annoy the fans, and confuse the rest of the people, they end up with a movie that neither group will watch.

        I predict this to be the more likely outcome.

    • We're headed into Highlander Sequel territory full steam ahead, here...
      • We're headed into Highlander Sequel territory full steam ahead, here...

        Ah, an entire series of movies I can say quite happily that I have never seen.

        After the original, nothing could have possibly compared. There can be only one.

        • We're headed into Highlander Sequel territory full steam ahead, here...

          Ah, an entire series of movies I can say quite happily that I have never seen.

          After the original, nothing could have possibly compared. There can be only one.

          Highlander 2 tried explaining the whole immortal thing with... aliens. Thanks for bringing midichlorians into a classic movie and ruining the whole franchise! Is it any wonder even the following directors don't consider it canon?

    • Sequels and Prequels of Blade Runner, and Ridley Scott may or may not be involved???

      Actually, I'm not sure Ridley Scott would be much of a help ... apparently, he's busy making prequels to Alien [], in 3D no less.

      I'd like them to not suck, but I fear they might. :(

    • Re:What ???? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MrNemesis ( 587188 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @02:29PM (#35371234) Homepage Journal

      Even with great scripts, I doubt the production design would be up to much. Never before and never since had a I seen a sci-fi universe brought to life with such confidence, style and scope - and that in itself was a crucial part of the Blade Runner story. Awesome vision from Scott plus Trumbull and team at the absolute peak of their powers, and one of the last epic films to make extensive use of models before the CGI revolution kicked in.

      Heck, when was the last time you saw a film that was even as well *lit* as Blade Runner?

      Making a film as artistically distinct as Blade Runner appears to be a dead art. Or rather a type of art that no-one is willing to finance. Not that I'm saying Blade Runner was all about the effects, it wasn't, but damn if they didn't almost singlehandedly define the visuals of the genre for a generation to come.

      Chances of requels/prequels/sequels/bleaquels having the same effect? Nil.

  • If we take Ridley Scott's word for it, Deckard is a replicant, and by deleting the narration the concept of Rachel not having a expiration date is lost.
  • If people didn't go to the movies, they wouldn't make money. They know (Hollywood, that is) that they'll get a $12 ticket from enough aging geeks for a lame turd of an eye-poking 3D pile of mawkish sentimental rehash sludge to make their money back. Plus, the movie tie-ins are worth a lot of money - how much does McDonald's pay for the rights for those Happy Meal Toys? Mattel? The video game rights?

    I guarantee this will make its money back. No matter how bad it is - they'll make it in some kind of tax sh

  • In Greg Egan's book Terenesia the protagonist is taken to see:

    Blade Runner(tm) OnIce(tm) With Songs InTheStyleOf(r) Gilbert and Sullivan(tm)

    Why did I just think of that?

  • Series of films, if planned that way, are OK. Sequels CAN be alright. Prequels and remakes are almost always terrible. In this case, we have a film long acknowledged to be a classic; the quick immersion and open-to interpretation ending neither require nor invite extension in either direction. Virtually none of the original actors (or anything else) can be re-used. So we'll have the typical Hollywood "grab the name and include a few hooks to the original' disaster. If only there was a way to get people to
  • by 0111 1110 ( 518466 ) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @10:58AM (#35368730)

    Alcon Entertainment has previously produced 19 other films, including The Blind Side, Insomnia, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pant, P.S. I Love You and the post apocalyptic science fiction film The Book of Eli, which starred Denzel Washington. []

    Lost & Found
    My Dog Skip
    The Affair of the Necklace
    Love Don't Cost a Thing
    Chasing Liberty
    Racing Stripes
    The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
    16 Blocks
    The Wicker Man
    P.S. I Love You
    One Missed Call
    The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2
    The Blind Side
    The Book of Eli
    Lottery Ticket

    No. This will not end well. Although, to be fair, Insomnia was not bad. It's just that the Norwegian original was much, much better. The remake was not necessary. We can only pray that these jokers choose a decent writer and director for like the first time in their lives. This should have been tagged with "whatcouldpossiblygowrong".

    • They made a sequel to The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants?!!.//!??221211??

      (head explodes)

    • So Alcon was responsible for the remake of "The Wicker Man", huh? The original is a classic of the genre, the remake is endlessly mocked as one of the worst films ever. This is clearly not a group of people that should be entrusted with Bladerunner.

  • ... that shouldn't have had sequels. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
  • The sooner it comes out, the sooner we can have a thread where we all rag on what a disappointment it was.

    C'mon, Hollywood - surprise me. I dare you!

  • As they're almost certainly gonna screw it up by making yet another high-budget CGI-fest with no plot whatsoever, I wish they would call it something else entirely rather than try and associate shit with my most favourite film.

  • RTFA - there's a big difference between "in final a very preliminary stage" and "happening". Until someone on a set says "aaaannnddd ACTION!" I'd treat this as Hollywood FUD.


Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.