Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Movies Sci-Fi

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This discussion has been archived.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

Green Lantern Writer To Pen Blade Runner Sequel

Comments Filter:
  • Dark (Score:5, Funny)

    by invid ( 163714 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @08:48AM (#43894995)
    It will only be good if they make it darker and edgier.
    • Re:Dark (Score:5, Funny)

      by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @08:56AM (#43895075)
      I suspect that if anything, it's going to be greener and more shiny.
    • Re:Dark (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 03, 2013 @08:59AM (#43895093)

      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:5, Funny)

      by TheSkepticalOptimist ( 898384 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @09:46AM (#43895511)

      If they make this movie any darker we won't be able to see what is going on.

  • No (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TWiTfan ( 2887093 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @08:50AM (#43895017)

    Let me guess, lots more action and 'plosions?

    • 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 [], 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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 03, 2013 @08:51AM (#43895029)

    Just leave them alone, please.

    • by TWiTfan ( 2887093 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @08:57AM (#43895081)

      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)

        by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @09:06AM (#43895137) Journal

        Wow, sounds like a good celebrity-cameo reboot for Logan's Run. Let's do this!

        • Finally, a Carousel I could get behind.

          • Finally, a Carousel I could get behind.

            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?

            • by aslagle ( 441969 )
              Some scriptwriter probably thought a revolver that used varied ammo just wouldn't look as cool as a gun that spat green fire. I would've liked to see a tangler round, though...
      • 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.

        • 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).

  • Noooooooooo! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tphb ( 181551 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @08:51AM (#43895031)

    If there's a movie that doesn't need a sequel, it's Blade Runner.

    Please Hollywood - find a new idea.

  • BLEH (Score:5, Informative)

    by Torp ( 199297 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @08:52AM (#43895043)

    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)

      by binarylarry ( 1338699 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @08:57AM (#43895077)

      Dude, quit being so Dickish.

    • Re:BLEH (Score:5, Insightful)

      by invid ( 163714 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @09:14AM (#43895207)
      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. The only movie that I know of that stayed close to one of his books is A Scanner Darkly. The greatness of Blade Runner was a happy convergence of talent from multiple people. In all likelihood, the sequel will be an abomination.
      • Re:BLEH (Score:4, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <> on Monday June 03, 2013 @09:56AM (#43895599) Homepage Journal

        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)

          by invid ( 163714 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @10:28AM (#43895879)
          I'm just trying to image what the movie would have been like if they had included Deckard's pet goat.
        • Re:BLEH (Score:4, Insightful)

          by chihowa ( 366380 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @10:36AM (#43895933)

          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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 03, 2013 @11:53AM (#43896527)

          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)

        by tippe ( 1136385 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @10:16AM (#43895767)

        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.

    • 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)

        by moeinvt ( 851793 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @10:54AM (#43896061)

        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.

    • Wait, they found him [] again!
  • wtf? (Score:5, Funny)

    by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @08:53AM (#43895047)
    You mean someone didn't ban him for life from being involved with writing anything EVER again after the green lantern?
    • Re:wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kannibal_klown ( 531544 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @09:07AM (#43895143)

      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.

  • by Zaatxe ( 939368 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @08:53AM (#43895053)
    Why not a reboot?
  • by wwphx ( 225607 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @08:56AM (#43895073) Homepage
    Green Lantern was not exactly a great movie, Blade Runner was. Ignoring how faithful the original was to the source material, the sequel has to be very faithful to the original movie to ensure good story continuity. Someone that would impress me would be Peter Jackson or Del Toro. For that matter, Kevin Smith would impress me if he were attached to the project. Or William Goldman, a master at re-writes.

    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.
    • by MozeeToby ( 1163751 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @09:10AM (#43895169)

      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.

      • by jasenj1 ( 575309 )

        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

      • by rioki ( 1328185 )

        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.

        • 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

          • by rioki ( 1328185 )

            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...

            • by rioki ( 1328185 )

              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.

      • I would see that movie, if it weren't billed as a sequel to Blade Runner, but just as its own thing.

      • by slim ( 1652 )

        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

      • by c ( 8461 )

        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.

        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.

    • by dintech ( 998802 )

      I thought Star Trek Into Darkness was kinda sucky

      *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.

      • by rioki ( 1328185 )

        Honestly the worst I found where the uniforms. What was up with THAT?! Did someone want to make a sequel to Starship Troopers?

      • 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.

    • by Kelbear ( 870538 )

      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

  • 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.

  • by kannibal_klown ( 531544 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @08:59AM (#43895099)

    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.

  • by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @09:03AM (#43895113) Homepage Journal
    How many movies these days aren't a sequel to a reboot to a prequel of something that's been made before? Hollywood can't pass up the quick fix of a "built in audience". Too bad that all too often they don't show up.
    • by Phrogman ( 80473 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @09:19AM (#43895263) Homepage

      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)

    by Ralph Barbagallo ( 2881145 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @09:05AM (#43895135) Homepage
    When will they get M Night Shyamalan to make Citizen Kane 2?
    • Rosebud was actually Bigfoot all along!

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        What a twist!

    • 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)

    by houbou ( 1097327 )
    the choosing of this writer does not inspire me with great confidence.

    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,
    • 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.

  • by Aguazul2 ( 2591049 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @09:07AM (#43895149)

    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.

    • If Vangelis came back for the soundtrack on this one, it would be incredible. But if they got Com Truise [] to do the score, I definitely wouldn't mind.
    • 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.

  • Confuseya Say: He who run blade but do not "enhance", get no romance, only split pants.
  • by Swampash ( 1131503 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @09:12AM (#43895183)

    With the director of "GI Jane" and "Prometheus" how could it fail?

  • That is all.

  • Oh interesting (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by AbRASiON ( 589899 ) *

    Do you think it'll be as boring and over rated as the orignal? Only time will tell.

  • Maybe the sequel will smash us over the head with whether or not Deckard truly is a replicant to try to put an end to the perpetual debating among the fans.
    • by slim ( 1652 )

      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.

  • 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? []

  • by tekrat ( 242117 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @09:38AM (#43895427) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • My mother... I'll tell you about my mother.

    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.

  • by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Monday June 03, 2013 @10:13AM (#43895733) Homepage Journal

    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!"

  • 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

  • []

    It seems that even Will Smith can't be successful all the time.. DVD/Blue Ray available in 3.. 2... 1 months?

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford