Green Lantern Writer To Pen Blade Runner Sequel 326
First time accepted submitter MovieEnthusiast writes "Alcon Entertainment, the production company that own the rights to Blade Runner, have announced that the Blade Runner sequel will be re-written by Michael Green (The Green Lantern) and hinted at other possible Blade Runner spin-offs. From the press release: 'Writer Michael Green is in negotiations to do a rewrite of Alcon Entertainment's "Blade Runner" sequel penned by Hampton Fancher ("Blade Runner," "The Minus Man," "The Mighty Quinn") and to be directed by Ridley Scott. Fancher's original story/screenplay is set some years after the first film concluded.
Alcon co-founders and co-Chief Executive Officers Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove will produce with Bud Yorkin and Cynthia Sikes Yorkin, along with Ridley Scott. Frank Giustra and Tim Gamble, CEO's of Thunderbird Films, will serve as executive producers.
Green recently completed rewrites on "Robopocalypse" and Warners Bros "Gods and Kings."'"
Dark (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dark (Score:5, Funny)
Does BR even rate having a sequel? Explain please (Score:3)
Granted, I saw it in the theater when it came out, and I was expecting more of a Star Wars thing, due to the time in history and at that time it was about all I'd ever seen Harrison Ford in)...so, I was confused and kinda disappointed, and possibly that has carried on in some small way into adulthood. While I've seen th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does BR even rate having a sequel? Explain plea (Score:5, Insightful)
You were unlucky enough to see it at the wrong time of your life, with the wrong expectations. It might not be fixable.
It'll be diminished now because that vision of the dark futuristic city, mixing Japan-inspired neon with rain and grime, has been done to death. Also it played to our fears and anticipations in the 80s.
I think it's a great film though, which reads differently depending on your perspective. At one stage, I watched it and saw it as a meditation on fate, the passing of time and the nature of memories. That's explicit in Rutger Hauer's monologues, but also in other aspects of the film.
Then I watched it again more recently, and read it in a completely different way.
That's evidence of depth.
Re:Does BR even rate having a sequel? Explain plea (Score:5, Insightful)
that vision of the dark futuristic city, mixing Japan-inspired neon with rain and grime, has been done to death.
The term you're looking for is Tech-noir.
At one stage, I watched it and saw it as a meditation on fate, the passing of time and the nature of memories
Like most of Dick's stories, it's a meditation on reality. What is real, what is not, how do you tell when all your evidence is subjective, and most importantly... does it actually matter?
As for which version of the movie is better, it's mostly a matter of taste. One has the voice-over narrative, which gives the movie a feeling reminiscent of the old "gum-shoe" detective movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood and helps move things along. The other does not, which gives it more of a drawn-out, brooding feeling... this is also the version with the "unicorn dream" which lends support to the idea that Deckard is also a Replicant.
As for the sequel, it's a shit movie. I can say that without it even being made or written. Why? Because the story has no sequel, that's part of the damn point of the thing. The original was about the characters, not the World. Dick really was a master at writing individual stories, he didn't write series and his stories are self-contained. Any time the plot contains an "open end" it's meant to be that way, and adding sequels or tying up "loose ends" actually detracts from the story.
I'm afraid that any attempt at a sequel or re-make will be just as much of a cluster-fuck as what they did to Total Recall.
Re: (Score:3)
> The term you're looking for is Tech-noir.
I think the term we're looking for is simply cyberpunk. "Japan-inspired neon with rain and grime" is also a pretty good description of William Gibson's books.
Re:Dark (Score:5, Funny)
It will only be good if they make it darker and edgier.
You want edgier? Then let's see them use Sean Young & Darrel Hannah again ... in the original costumes.
Re: Dark (Score:2)
Yeah, she's a substance abusing mess these days. I think she's burned way too many bridges to ever make it into a mainstream Hollywood film again.
Re:Dark (Score:5, Funny)
If they make this movie any darker we won't be able to see what is going on.
No (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me guess, lots more action and 'plosions?
Re: (Score:2)
If they could tie it in with the aliens universe and we got to see some of the action out past the Shoulder of Orion I would pay good money to watch that. Stir in a little Outland [wikipedia.org], maybe a pinch of Air America, and I'll buy all the merchandise as well. It's quite possible to keep the philosophical overtones and deep questions while having some gunplay as well. I would tap Robert Downey Jr for the bladerunner.
Don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Just leave them alone, please.
Re:Don't (Score:4)
I wish there were such a thing as forced retirement for directors. Directors, with a few notable exceptions, generally get about 10 years of true creativity. After that, they just become more and more of an embarrassment to themselves. I would be perfectly fine with establishing a high-security old directors home where the likes of George Lucas, Ridley Scott, Steven Speilberg, et. al. could be shuffled off to at bayonet point, never to rape their own legacy again.
Re:Don't (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, sounds like a good celebrity-cameo reboot for Logan's Run. Let's do this!
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, a Carousel I could get behind.
Re: (Score:2)
IN the book there was no Carousel...geez, they really fucked up a great story with THAT movie adaptation. They completely blew off the coolness that was "the gun" in the book. Where was the homer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think Lucas is a gigantic douche wrapped in a turd sandwich, but he didn't rape anything. Nobody has come to your house and taken away your laserdisc featuring Han shooting first and nobody forced you to go watch the Gungan Menace.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Lucas is a gigantic douche wrapped in a turd sandwich, but he didn't rape anything. Nobody has come to your house and taken away your laserdisc featuring Han shooting first and nobody forced you to go watch the Gungan Menace.
Oh he didn't rape me. He raped himself (or, more accurately, his younger self).
Prometheus? (Score:2)
Try "Legend".
Though I'd say it's more like he peaked there than "jumped the shark".
That was the last time he did anything resembling artistic expression.
After that he started "making movies" instead of "creating" them.
Not that he's bad at it or anything. I like most of his movies.
He makes perfectly watchable, mostly competently made (if we ignore G.I. Jane) and entertaining movies.
Some of them win Oscars and other awards.
They're just... not anything special.
They fell like you could have swapped the director
Noooooooooo! (Score:5, Interesting)
If there's a movie that doesn't need a sequel, it's Blade Runner.
Please Hollywood - find a new idea.
Will they answer the question... (Score:2)
Will they answer the question?
Is/Was Harrison Ford's character in the movie a replicant?
Re:Will they answer the question... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a question – why would answering that question make a good movie?
Personally, I like the ambiguity. It still makes for an interesting conversation after all of these years – Unlike Han’s “Who shot first” question? My guess is that it would detract from the original – not add. Personally, I think that the should leave it like the original Matrix movie – No reason to do another one, even if the fans demand a sequel.
Re: (Score:2)
Will they answer the question?
Is/Was Harrison Ford's character in the movie a replicant?
I can't keep the different versions of Blade Runner straight in my mind anymore, but at least some of them make it pretty unambiguous that he is (it contains the unicorn dream sequence). So the question is answered.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Noooooooooo! (Score:5, Interesting)
What you said.
Blade Runner is by far one of the best movies ever, in part due to the never answered question. It does not need a sequel. That movie should stand on it's own and should not be messed or tampered with in any way.
Please Hollywood, Please, for the love of all good creations, don't do a sequel or a redo, ever. Let it remain the masterpiece that it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Uwe Boll could decided to move out of decimating game franchises.
BLEH (Score:5, Informative)
The only person that could write a sequel died in 1982. This will automatically be a steaming pile of shit.
Re:BLEH (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, quit being so Dickish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:BLEH (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BLEH (Score:4, Interesting)
As much as I love PK Dick's writing, Blade Runner has very little to do with his book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
Wait, what? It's about the same thing, most of the same characters, the central point of both stories is the same. How is that "very little to do with"?
Re:BLEH (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:BLEH (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you even read/watch them? The setting is roughly the same and some characters share the same names. The similarity really ends there.
Re:BLEH (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, no, they are substantially different. As said below they have similar character names and a generally similar story at the highest levels, but the setting, overall plot, and details stray from there. Some themes are similar, some are not.
Book: The world is mostly depopulated as people have been leaving Earth for some time. There's a common thread amongst the people remaining of guilt over the harm humanity has caused to the planet, thus the religion around the VR experience of the guy getting stoned (the physical kind, being hit with thrown rocks, not the drug kind), there's an effort by people to protect what few animals there are left to where Deckard carefully saves a small spider in his apartment building. Androids are outlawed, however they've been breaking the rules so long that by the end of the story half the planet may be androids. It has themes of identity and technology's power to confuse the "nature" of humanity, as well as environmentalism and guilt. Deckard's quest is notable in that he becomes more alive as the story progresses. Most importantly, Deckard is *clearly* human. There is no pre-set lifespan on androids.
Movie: the world is heavily overpopulated and a total ruin, with a mixing and clashing of cultures and over-commercialism. The guilt element is gone, although the environmentalist aspect still remains. Androids are outlawed but there are very few on Earth at all. It still has the theme of questioning the nature of "humanity", but delves deeper into memories and their reality, as well as technology's ability to confuse real humanity and fake humanity, but the theme here is mostly highlighted with the ambiguous nature of Deckard, whether he is a replicant or a human. It's also highlighted in the fact that the replicants are the most "real" characters in the story, expressive, emotional, and ambitious in their journey, whereas the humans are more automatons; very monotone in their emotions. However there is a larger theme regarding mortality and the search for our maker that is entirely not present in the book at all. Roy Batty's quest in the movie is to find answers to his questions about life, and most importantly to find a way to overcome his mortality. He searches for his maker in order to find a way to extend his life, however his maker rebuffs him. He instead destroys his maker and contemplates and finally accepts his pending death. This is a signature Ridley Scott theme not present in the books, the journey for mankind to understand by searching for their creator, and to strive beyond the limitations set for him.
The movie basically takes the Phillip K Dick story and his central themes (dreams, the nature of humanity and reality), and mixes it with Ridley Scott themes (the search for a higher power, greater wisdom and understanding, overcoming mortality) along with social themes current at the time the movie was made (commercialism, environmentalism, overpopulation).
Re:BLEH (Score:4, Insightful)
As chance would have it, I'm actually right in the middle of reading this book!
While the general premise of the book is the same as the movie (androids/replicants being hunted by a bounty hunter/blade runner), there are already enough differences between the two (so far) that I can definitely see them diverging from each other to the point where they have "very little to do with" each other... or perhaps not.
It's been many years since I've seen Blade Runner, but the principal theme (or moral, or whatever) that I recall from the movie is the confusion/tension between human (or "life") and machine and the underlying themes of what it actually means to be "alive" vs being a mechanical automaton. In the movie, Deckard, a human (or so I recall. As I understand it, there exists a theory that he was actually a replicant...) spends all of his energy chasing down and retiring what we are led to believe are nothing more than machines, but at the end we (and him) discover that these so-called lifeless androids have lived more than he ever has. You are left wondering what the real difference is between being "alive" as a human or being "alive" as an android, especially since the androids, owing to their shorter lifespan, seemed to appreciate life more, and lived it more fully than their human counterparts (that go though life living like machines) do.
While the book (so far) has a lot of difference between it and the movie, and hasn't indicated that androids have an artificially shorter lifespan (like in the movie), it has already introduced some themes that set up confusion/tension between things that are "alive" vs ones that are artificial and mechanical. Therefore, like I said earlier, I can definitely see it finishing in the same way as the movie: with us questioning if there is a real difference, and wondering if the androids were actually more "human" and more "alive" than the humans themselves. If that's true, then I wouldn't really say that one had very little to do with the other.
One thing's for sure though; it's an interesting book, and regardless of how things turn out, I think that so far it's definitely worth reading.
Re: (Score:2)
This will automatically be a steaming pile of shit.
Only if your criteria for "steaming pile of shit" boils down to "isn't written by the original author." Which seems like a stupid criteria.
Re:BLEH (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the preponderance of evidence would point to the OP's conclusion. IMO, the majority of sequels suck anyway and trying to do a sequel/derivative of an awesome film like "Blade Runner" seems like a sure letdown.
I won't be prejudiced by the fact that it's not the original author. I'll just be very surprised (and very pleased) if they manage to produce something good.
Russel Targ and Hal Puthoff say "hi". (Score:2)
wtf? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)
The movie was "alright" Really, as far as origin stories go... the basic plot wasn't too bad and it had all of the main elements an origin story needs. And let's face it, origin stories stink on camera... almost as a rule.
Though only head-scratcher is they started out-the-gate with Parallax. He's more of an end-boss type of villain instead of a tutorial-mission-boss.
I think it was more of a package-fail: a combination of directing / writing / etc.
I think the movie was "alright" but not great. And for something like Blade Runner... I'd want someone that had proven himself as awesome. This guy hasn't yet, though his work on "Kings" was quite superb.
Re: (Score:3)
GL is one of my favorite characters.
But I have to admit, I'm not digging some of the recent stuff. Blackest Night (DC Zombies) and the recent First Lantern bit were weak.
But Rebirth was epic. And the Sinestro Corps war was decent. Some of the Red Lantern back-story is OK, and I dug how just before New52 Hal managed to kill a Guardian... feat that was supposedly impossible due to Ring restrictions.
But after the Sinestro Corps, it's like they turned the Lanterns into Care Bears (tm). So many colors, each
A sequel after all this time? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
why touch it at all, It is a beautiful piece of cinematic history that doesn't need to be tarnished by the Hollywood of today. Just leave it the fuck alone.
Agreed.
Leave it alone. I'm OK with the various re-releases or some SFX-cleanups.
But other than that, just leave the classics alone.
Re:A sequel after all this time? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which one, The theatrical release, the directors cut, the sneak preview release, or any of the others. This movie has never been left the fuck alone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I recommend they stick to only the Directors Cut and include a bandolier of joints with every copy
Re:A sequel after all this time? (Score:5, Funny)
Why not a reboot?
No. That's not actually the damn answer to everything. Typical Windows User
Re: (Score:2)
(A)bort, (R)etry (F)lail
Re:A sequel after all this time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or a prequel. We might even be able to see things we people wouldn't believe, Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.
We really need to commit those memories to celluloid before they're lost in time, like tears in rain
I'm also interested in seeing the baby spiders.
This does not inspire confidence in me (Score:5, Interesting)
Though it's entirely possible that I'm turning in to a curmudgeon and should stick to my video collection and watch 20+ year old movies only, I thought Star Trek Into Darkness was kinda sucky and hold little hope in my heart for JJ's Star Wars movies.
Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you really see a slow paced sci-fi noir action/psychological/ethical thriller playing well today? No, hell, it didn't even play well when Blade Runner was made, they barely recouped their cost. No studio in their right minds would green light a true sequel to Blade Runner because it is at best a gamble and more realistically a financial wash. So what are we gonna end up with? I'm guessing a Micheal Bay-ified version, complete with explosions, spaceships, maybe even an all out human on replicant war, with the fate of humanity hanging in the balance.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. I hope history will look back at this time period and mock us for the over-use of CGI to make over the top explosions, giant robots/aliens/monsters, etc. CGI can be used very effectively to add just that little bit extra without screaming in your face.
But then you have to examine the demographic the movie targets. Teenagers love big, over the top explosions, etc. Sci-fi noir, not so much. A "great" movie may not make as much money as a "terrible" FX laden turd. Hollywood would rather make the latte
Re: (Score:3)
I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe... [laughs] Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those... moments... will be lost in time, like [coughs] tears... in... rain. Time... to die...*
THAT could be made into an action movie. It would not tarnish the original movie and match quite well into a standard blockbuster format. This movie can use the blade runner name and still stand on it's own. Unfortunately, Hollywood being Hollywood... not much hope there.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but what would be the point? The soldiers are essentially newborns, at most a few years old, being forced to fight a war that they don't care about and will never live to see the end of even if they win every battle without a casualty. There's no human drama possible because up until the events immediately before Blade Runner the replicants were basically living, thinking machines. Besides, taking the replicants and turning them into the mindless war machines that a big budget sci-fi action movie wou
Re: (Score:2)
To a certain extent it is about machines (replicants) becoming human. At least that is the underlying dilemma packaged into a rather classic fime noir. Why not take the approach from the other angle. The same core question embedded into a rather action oriented movie. It's just an idea, ya know...
Re: (Score:2)
Come tho think of it, I would rather watch super soldier becoming human than PI and his love doll escaping the clutches justice yet again. The first could actually be an interesting take on ethics and machines/robots in warfare.
Re: (Score:2)
I would see that movie, if it weren't billed as a sequel to Blade Runner, but just as its own thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really see a slow paced sci-fi noir action/psychological/ethical thriller playing well today?
Well, depends what you mean by "playing well". I don't see it being box office no. 1, but you can get the same effects on screen much more cheaply nowadays, and there's scope to make something intelligent, with Blade Runner's tone, that makes its money back. The question is whether Ridley Scott wants to be involved with something medium-budget, or whether the studio will let him. That said, he owns his own production companies and should be able to call the shots.
Moon was a critical success, and I imagine m
Re: (Score:2)
That could actually be kind of cool.
Now, if only they can come up with a name for it that isn't Blade Runner... If they want to tie it to a well-known franchise, the "Terminator" name can't get much more debased.
Re: (Score:2)
*Spoiler Alert*
I thought there was way too much 'emotion'. Every scene Uhura is in, she's weeping about something. Even the stoic vulcan has a good blub at least once.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly the worst I found where the uniforms. What was up with THAT?! Did someone want to make a sequel to Starship Troopers?
Re: (Score:3)
I know what you mean, but I decided to let it go when I remembered that even in TOS Spock shows emotion at unexpectedly seeing Kirk alive at the end of Amok Time.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not a curmudgeon, I'm 28 and I thought ST:ID was terrible as a star trek film. It was terrific as an action movie in space, but it didn't put any effort into bringing any of the thoughtfulness that made Star Trek special.
Star Trek is packed with campiness, plot holes, and hand-wavy science, but the shows are brave enough to tackle the weighty ethical questions that make for great sci-fi.
I still enjoyed both of JJ's Star Trek movies. The first had the novelty of reimagining the original trek, and I ga
Re: (Score:2)
I have found a very low correlation between how good a movie is and how good the writer’s prior screenwriting work was. There is a lot that goes on between the writing of the words and what we see on the screen. Studio heads, directors, writers, film editors all modify what was on the written page.
I trust Ridley Scott. If he picked this guy out then that is good enough for me. Maybe Mr. Green’s magnum opus is this work and Scott has seen an early draft. (But I will withhold finial judgment unt
Re: (Score:2)
I trust Ridley Scott.
Even after Prometheus?
I mean, it wasn't awful. But it wasn't good either.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, the new Dredd movie was great.
Re: (Score:3)
The new Dredd film is notable for being a sci-fi action film that lasts 95 minutes without getting boring (which is pretty unusual nowadays).
It's also notable for more-or-less nailing the tone of the comic, which the Stallone one came nowhere near doing.
I'd love to see a sequel, but I think its box office performance precludes that.
Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (Score:5, Insightful)
I loved it.
But, being South African/British, it was not really a Hollywood movie, was it?
A great disturbance... (Score:2, Funny)
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
Not thrilled (Score:3)
Firstly, Blade Runner doesn't need a sequel. Or a prequel. Or a re-imagining. It was solid by itself. Let it be.
Secondly, as much of a fan as I am of the Green Lantern comics... and as someone who thought the move was "alright" I would rather they went with someone else for the screenplay.
He also wrote the series "Kings" which was fantastic, but the rest of his WRITING resume is "meh"
So if you're going to do something like this... get someone GREAT. Get someone AWESOME. Don't get someone without a lot of hits on his writing resume.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand there is source material for sequels.
But there are books and there are movies. The books tend to be superior to the movies and tend not to lose their quality from volume-to-volume in a series.
Movies... are kind of fragile. To make a good movie adaptation takes a lot of pieces coming together JUST right (screen play, director, actor, funding, vision, producer, setting, etc.)... AND a lot of luck. Trying to replicate that luck tends to fail. Out of all of the sequels made (including direct-to
Hollywood is out of ideas (Score:3)
Re:Hollywood is out of ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
Except by making a gratuitous sequel (or reboot) of a great movie, they usually manage to offend the fans of the original, plus since they seldom "get" what the appeal of the original is, they usually don't make a better sequel - thus turning off the younger fans that might have adopted the new version.
And of course, since the redo is big budget, they have to run it through the hands of a few writers to be sure its got the seal of approval that the backers want, and in the process anything good or quirky is ironed out and the script conforms to the cliches that worked in the past based on market research and analysis. Usually this means more Splosions.
Rosebud (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Rosebud was actually Bigfoot all along!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What a twist!
Re: (Score:2)
Stop saying that, someone might hear you .. in his version, we'd find out that Kane was actually Rosebud all along.
I have determined that having Shyamalan's name on a piece of work means it's a movie I need to avoid.
Well, to me, (Score:2, Insightful)
Green Lantern was a great movie, from a technical viewpoint.
In that respect, I would say that both Superman Returns and Green Lantern are movies whch the special effects were done right and as such, can be considered technical successes.
In Green Lantern, I didn't mind the way they ported the ring / power battery technology into the movie, the CGI were decent, considering how one could envision a ring construct made of green light,
Re: (Score:3)
You have to be kidding! It was the lamest Sci-Fi flick of recent memory and was worse than "Fly me to the moon."
If you want to know how bad a movie is, track how long it takes to go from theater to DVD/Blue-Ray. Green Lantern went out on disc in 4 months. People are still buying the original "Blade Runner" and I doubt that anybody will remember "The Green Lantern" in five years.
Vangelis (Score:3)
Part of the uniqueness of Blade Runner was the soundtrack. There are just so many ways this sequel can go wrong. But I suppose I don't have to watch it if they fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disasterpeace [disasterpeace.com] could do it justice, I feel.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the uniqueness of Blade Runner was the soundtrack. There are just so many ways this sequel can go wrong. But I suppose I don't have to watch it if they fail.
I'm gonna say Maroder. But they'll probably give it to Daft Punk.
Depends. What electric sheep wearing? (Score:2)
it will be awesome (Score:4, Funny)
With the director of "GI Jane" and "Prometheus" how could it fail?
Fuck. (Score:2)
That is all.
Oh interesting (Score:2, Flamebait)
Do you think it'll be as boring and over rated as the orignal? Only time will tell.
Replicant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love that it's ambiguous, but I can't abide the fans debating.
Look, there's no right answer. The actors/writers/directors don't have a secret canonical version of what wasn't shown on screen. Both possibilities exist.
See also the excellent recent film 'Kill List', in which lots of background is deliberately left undefined. The writer/director has said quite clearly that all interpretations are equally valid.
Please post news about Radio Free Albemuth (Score:2)
In other news the independent movie Radio Free Albemuth is having a kickstarter campaign to fund theatrical release. Why don't we get news about this?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/elizabethkarr/radio-free-albemuth-theatrical-release/ [kickstarter.com]
I hate to be the one to say this... (Score:4, Interesting)
The ONLY, and I mean ONLY person to have ever done a sequel to a Ridley Scott film "right" was James Cameron. I know he's not well liked in Slashdot circles, but even Ridley can't do his own films justice, as we've seen with Prometheus.
In fact, when I first heard they were doing an Alien sequel when I was in college, I was aghast, as I am now over this Blade Runner sequel... But "aliens" was a fine shoot-em-up adventure film, and is still watchable even today. "Game over man" and "nuke 'em from orbit" are quotes used to this day.
There's simply NO WAY to make a Blade Runner sequel and do it right -- you might as well be talking about sequels to Casablanca and Citizen Kane. You don't mess with a classic. That terrible Planet of the Apes reboot with Marky Mark should have showed everyone that you just don't mess with a classic.
The Only Possible Response (Score:2)
My favorite part of the original is how they portrayed the urban landscape. Dark and rainy, yet dirty. Like the rain itself could not wash away the effects of the lack of morality of the over populated city. If the sequel fucks this part up, I will be sorely disappointed.
Who am I kidding? I should just start being disappointed now and get it over with.
Michael Green to write a sequel TKAM2 (Score:5, Funny)
To Kill a Mockingbird 2
"If Atticus Finch can't get justice in the court room...
(Queue sound effects: "Screeech.....KABOOM...."ATTICUS!!!!") ...he'll get it on the street!"
Standard Hollywood procedure? (Score:2)
Is it possible to sell only the rights to a specific book or story, or does Hollywood demand that authors surrender the rights so that sequels and derivative works are legal without a new agreement?
Perhaps it could be done well, but the idea of "Blade Runner 2" makes me cringe.
I just learned recently that Thomas Harris (author of the Hannibal Lecter books) sold the rights to the characters as well as the books. Hollywood was threatening to use the rights to produce a film NOT based on a book, so they coer
Well it can't be any worse than "After Earth" (Score:2)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324423904578521542174762344.html?google_editors_picks=true [wsj.com]
It seems that even Will Smith can't be successful all the time.. DVD/Blue Ray available in 3.. 2... 1 months?
Re: (Score:2)
Generic action movie script*
*with specific skin to be slapped on later
Mott the Hoople, FTW (Score:2)
Dude, it's not dude it's dud.
Maybe Weird Al could sing 'All the young duds'.
Re: (Score:2)