Harrison Ford To Return In Blade Runner Sequel 222
An anonymous reader sends news that Harrison Ford is now confirmed to be returning as Rick Deckard in the upcoming sequel to Blade Runner. Ridley Scott is now officially an executive producer for the film as well, and Denis Villeneuve will direct. It's set to begin production in the summer of 2016.
I Have Plans Now (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I Have Plans Now (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But of the times I've seen it way in the past, it just never really hit me as that good of a movie.
I know I was disappointed as a kid when it came out originally in theaters, I was expecting something like Star Wars and it wasn't that.
I saw it a few years after that and to me, really...it was just kinda boring. It seeme
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I Have Plans Now (Score:5, Informative)
And that's kind of the problem ... Blade Runner would be a terrible movie to a kid.
The appeal of Blade Runner was, in part, the world they created: gritty, dark, decaying -- contrasted with the high-tech world of the wealthy. The story was much more sophisticated than a kid is going to get, it's definitely not space opera -- and understanding some of the stuff which is more insinuated than stated is a lot harder.
For me, the one labelled "The Director's Cut" restores some of the film noire elements, does a little more filling in the gaps, and makes more sense. The theatrical version lost some stuff in translation and dumbed it down a little.
I see there's now a "Definitive Edition", but I've not seen it and don't know much about it.
Find the Director's cut, and pay special attention to the things which suggest Decker is a replicant (sorry if that's a spoiler, but I assume this has been well known for a very long time), and have fun.
IMO, it really is a damned fine movie.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's kind of the problem ... Blade Runner would be a terrible movie to a kid.
I don't know. I was 12 and seeing it only because Harrison Ford/Han Solo was in it. From the opening scene of fireballs and giant buildings in a small city to the death of Roy, the movie blew me away. I was expecting something like Star Wars but this was new, different; perspective changing. Perhaps one of the reasons I like the narration in the theatrical version. The setting and scene was a stark contrast to the clean futures of science fiction that were almost always portrayed, but once the narrations st
Re: (Score:2)
> know I was disappointed as a kid when it came out originally in theaters
Interesting. I saw it after it passed its first run, and it was a double-feature (remember those?) with Firefox starting. I arrived late and saw the 2nd half of Firebox, which even as a 15-yr-old boy nerd I dismissed as silly. Then Blade Runner came on. I remember being awed. Not by the plot itself, but by the vision. The gritty always-raining deteriorating city stuck in my mind like no movie since Star Wars (in which case it was
Re: (Score:2)
You know....I've just never really "gotten" this movie.
It's certainly not Scott's most accessible film. Much is left unspoken and implied, not dumbed down. That's one of the (many) reasons I like it so much: there's always something to discover or analyze.
Here's one that even fans don't seem to have noticed: every human left on Earth, except the replicants, is shown to be somehow unfit for offworld travel (old & infirm, diseased, alcoholic, criminal). This seems like a major, major clue that Deckard is
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you didn't pay attention to the clues throughout the film then the movie isn't as good. It's only when you realize that Deckard is also a replicant that the movie takes on a different deeper meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Strongly disagree.
The relationship between Deckard and Rachel works better if he is human. The idea of a human Blade Runner coming to love what he was trained to destroy is tragic and redemptive.
Ya, right. Watch the original test viewing version sometime. It becomes obvious that Deckard is just a lonely, selfish man who finds himself with a woman that has to side with him because her life is at stake. Complete with near rape scene where he corners her and makes her say she loves him because to do otherwise would most certainly mean her death. There was certainly a reason they added the narration to what was the theatrical version, and that's because the original version was a little too dark and no
Re: (Score:2)
All the answers to the contrary which you are going to get are wrong, wrong, wrong.
By far the best version is the original theatrical cut. The international release is very slightly better (one minute of "scary violence" is cut from the U.S. release), but either that or the U.S. release will do very nicely. This is the only version with Ford's voiceover, which is absolutely essential to understanding what is going on. It also adds tremendously to the noir feel.
The only way I know for sure to get this versio
Oh God No... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't give this classic movie the crystal skull treatment. It doesn't deserve that.
Re:Oh God No... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still believe in Ridley Scott, even if I'm the only person on god's green earth that liked Prometheus. So Charlize Theron is not an ambi-turner; so what?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Prometheus rocked.
Re:Oh God No... (Score:5, Insightful)
Prometheus would have been an OK movie, if it didn't have plotholes the size of which lets a squadron of B-52s enter and leave.
Re: (Score:2)
Did it? I actually remember seeing the explanation (something about their building an interface to our satellites meant that we could send a virus back).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I thought Prometheus, all in all, was an excellent film. The only element that really bothered me was just how achingly stupid the captain of that ship was. But other than that sour point, the film was very good.
Re:Oh God No... (Score:4, Insightful)
OMG, you have to be kidding! I've never seen another film where characters charge so stupidly ahead into the face of the unknown.
Part of what made Alien superior to other space monster movies was the believability of the crew. They really come across as average working stiffs who find themselves in deep doo-doo, and proceed with caution because they don't understand what they're dealing with.
In Prometheus, every single character was a total idiot when it comes to exploring the unknown... none of them died fast enough for me!
Re:Oh God No... (Score:4, Interesting)
Prometheus would have been great had they stuck to the original script and kept it explicitly an Alien prequel like it was meant to be. So much wasted potential.
No. I've read the original script and it would have felt like a copy of Alien/Aliens. It would have been much worse than what we actually got. A stale film.
Prometheus suffers from the same disease that afflicts The Phantom Menace. The theatrical cut is horrid. I saw one of the fan edits where the film starts with a presentation of Wayland himself. It was much much better than the theatrical cut. Same problem with Kingdom of Heaven. The theatrical cut was shit, the director's cut was excellent. I think that if Scott wanted to do a real director's cut with the material he already filmed (and left out of the theatrical cut) it would be great.
Re:Oh God No... (Score:5, Insightful)
The story was complete.
There is no sequel.
Another story set in the same milieu? Now that could be done. But not a sequel.
Re: (Score:2)
Another story set in the same milieu? Now that could be done. But not a sequel.
If the few things I read about this late last year are any indication, that's what it is - something with a new Blade Runner as the primary protagonist, and Deckard is in the script as the old man who used to be one.
And really, it's not like they could reasonably do this with Ford playing the hunter of Replicants anymore - he's 72 years old, and is starting to show it.
Re:Oh God No... (Score:5, Interesting)
And, unless they somehow account for how Deckard the replicant has grown old ... I just don't see how they get there at all. He's not just a hunter of them, he is one.
So either they start this one in which Deckard isn't a replicant, and they'll piss off the fans of the movie. Or they'll have to treat very carefully to explain it.
There are some movies and stories which do not invite sequels. This is one of them.
Cynically, this sounds like someone looking to make some more money, not someone with a good follow up story for Blade Runner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Leon puts his hand in freezing liquid without a problem.
Pris puts her hand in boiling water without a problem.
You can argue whether they are "robots" based upon YOUR definition of "robot". But those are not human hands.
Re: (Score:2)
But those are not human hands.
Well, not Human 1.0 anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they are and they aren't.
The GP has a point, they are biological in nature, not mechanical.
Sebastian was a bio-engineer, and said he suffered the same problem as the replicants, premature aging.
So, they're not robots. But "more human than human", which means some of our limitations have been removed, but still built out of the same stuff.
It was never clear in the movie if the replicants ever started out as "babies", or sort of started out fully formed ... so to answer th
Re: (Score:2)
The replicants were sent out to work in hazardous environments out in deep space. Presumably they had all sorts of customizations provided to assist in doing the job.
Re:Oh God No... (Score:5, Insightful)
Leon puts his hand in freezing liquid without a problem.
Pris puts her hand in boiling water without a problem.
I always thought those were more to show that the replicants had more control over their human++ bodies, being able to bypass feeling pain, or inflict it on themselves voluntarily, like Roy Batty did with the nail.
It would be interesting to see a Blade Runner 2 with Sean Young. What I don't want to see is yet another long overdue sequel where they have kept the male characters but replaced the female characters with younger eye candy. For some reason, women aging appears to be a taboo in Hollywood, and one I thinks needs to die.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see a Blade Runner 2 with Sean Young.
Sean Young's lack of work has nothing to do with her looks (hope I look half that good at her age), and a lot to do with her being a raging alcoholic and major drama queen. The ravishingly gorgeous and talented lady established a pretty legendary reputation as THE hot mess of the movie industry back in the 80s, and age appears to have done little to mellow things: she got arrested at an Oscars after-party in 2012 for misdemeanor assault on one
Re: (Score:2)
Leon puts his hand in freezing liquid without a problem.
Pris puts her hand in boiling water without a problem.
I always thought those were more to show that the replicants had more control over their human++ bodies, being able to bypass feeling pain, or inflict it on themselves voluntarily, like Roy Batty did with the nail.
They were to show the superior to human abilities, same as Zhora kicking and screaming on the ground after having been shot multiple times with a BFG. they punch through metal, they take great abuse, they are certainly portrayed as being superhuman in their abilities.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think Deckard from Blade Runner (unlike the one from PK Dick's story) is a replicant, but I see no reason why replicants couldn't age. The technology necessary for making replicants is, essentially, biochemistry. Highly advanced biochemistry. Now if they are able to make replicants that don't age, wouldn't they use the same or ancillary biotechnologies to help "normal" humans not age? Clearly, "normal humans" do age, so the problem of aging has not been solved in the Blade Runner universe.
Re:Oh God No... (Score:4, Interesting)
Replican'ts don't age because they only live 4 years.
And since Harrison Ford is significantly visibly older, how the hell is Scott going to rectify THAT?
CGI?
Make him NOT a replicant?
How about no.
I'm going to stay the hell away from this movie.
--
BMO
Re:Oh God No... (Score:5, Informative)
It was not said that ALL replicants live four years. The Nexus 6 were. But Decker and Rachel where not N6s.
Re: (Score:2)
But Decker and Rachel where not N6s.
Sorry, what makes you say that?
Re: (Score:2)
It is said in the movie that Rachel was "an experiment, nothing more". That she did not know what it was. This contrasts with the N6s which where in service. Not a mere experiment.
Doesn't explain why Leon likes his precious photos, giving that he what what he was. But that's not the only hole in the plot.
Re: (Score:2)
He was a top-secret prototype of a new type of replicant that could live much longer.
Re:Oh God No... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, there is an easy way around this.. just because it is now 30+ years after the release of Blade Runner, doesn't mean that this amount of time has passed in that world. Deckard could only be 3 years older, and be deteriorating rapidly.
Re: (Score:2)
And, unless they somehow account for how Deckard the replicant has grown old ... I just don't see how they get there at all. He's not just a hunter of them, he is one.
But that's the great thing about it. Since Deckard is a replicant and replicants have early expiration dates, you could use a 70-year old Harrison Ford and set it a year in the future from the original and it would be perfectly realistic!
The predictable script would in fact, have Ford on the run in a role reversal with a younger person as replicant hunter. Hopefully, though we'd be allowed something more original.
While they're at it, though, I wouldn't object if someone made a movie of the REAL "Blade Runne
Re: (Score:2)
So either they start this one in which Deckard isn't a replicant, and they'll piss off the fans of the movie.
I'd say that Deckard is not, and never was, a replicant, and I'll be pissed off if they try say he was one. I've never gotten this assertion that he's a replicant, since so much of what's the in movie points to him not being one, and how much better the story and symbolism is if he isn't.
Re:Oh God No... (Score:4, Informative)
The unicorn dream is obviously the strongest bit of evidence that Deckard is a replicant.
There's also the little hint when Rachael asks him if he's ever taken the VK test himself.
When the police first hire him, he's told that SIX replicants hijacked the shuttle and one got fried running through a force field. He then gets info about Leon, Roy, Pris and Zora ... so where's #6?
Deckard always seems to be physically out-classed by the replicants, which is evidence that he's not one of them, but he also takes a hell of a beating, which indicates that he might be.
Gaff tells Deckard "You've done a man's job."
Re:Oh God No... (Score:4, Interesting)
The unicorn dream is obviously the strongest bit of evidence that Deckard is a replicant.
A unicorn is a symbol of a mythical (i.e. man-made) creature of beauty and purity - so it's heavily symbolic for Rachael. The dream is symbolic of Deckard falling in love with Rachael. Gaff's unicorn at the end is also symbolic of Rachael. Also, Gaff's other uses of origami/similar throughout the film are all heavily symbolic of the scene it's placed in - why would this one use be the only one not symbolic?
There's also the little hint when Rachael asks him if he's ever taken the VK test himself.
More a reference to the book, where the same question comes up, and he has.
When the police first hire him, he's told that SIX replicants hijacked the shuttle and one got fried running through a force field. He then gets info about Leon, Roy, Pris and Zora ... so where's #6?
Production error. They were originally going to have six (and even had the part cast), but had to cut one for budget reasons, and forgot to change it in the dialogue. This has been fixed in the Final Cut, as they changed the dialogue to having two replicants fried by Tyrel's security grid.
Deckard always seems to be physically out-classed by the replicants, which is evidence that he's not one of them, but he also takes a hell of a beating, which indicates that he might be.
I'd put this evidence more to him not being one. He even gets his ass kicked by Pris "a pleasure model", and while he takes a hell of a beating it's not past the realm of believability for humans. Also, he doesn't display the ability to ignore pain that the replicants do.
Gaff tells Deckard "You've done a man's job."
This is a colloquialism that means about the same as "you've done a good day's/hard day's work". It's not meant to imply that anything about the listener not being a man.
Also, every single writer on the project has said that Deckard was never meant to be a replicant. Plus, there are multiple literary themes that lose their impact if Deckard is a replicant, too.
Re: (Score:2)
And, unless they somehow account for how Deckard the replicant has grown old ... I just don't see how they get there at all.
"'More human than human' is our motto. Here we have replicants that are so human they think they are human. Most, even with programming, come to realize what they really are. These are not as powerful as the Nexus 6 which allows for a longer life span, and they even age. Our goal is to eventually build them so their internal mechanics will allow them to self replicate. Imagine that. Replicants that are self replicating and believing they are human, perform any function that we might require a human to do bu
Re:Oh God No... (Score:5, Funny)
$ sh ./horridplotgen.sh
Welcome to the horrid movie plot generator! /dev/urandom
Is this a sequel? [y/n] y
To which classic movie or series? [list for options] Bladerunner
What is the path for the entropy source?
Quality level? [list for options] list
Passable Ok Meh Bad Terrible Hollywood
Quality level? [list for options] Hollywood
*************
WARNING!
You have selected "Hollywood"-- This will skip the rest of the configuration section, and set Hollywood defaults!
Are you sure? [y/n] y
Getting Bladerunner script from repository ......Done ......Done ............Done
Training Markov chain engines
Loading Hollywood_Sequel rules and preset defaults
Done
Confabulating plot synopsis
Review generated plot blurb before full scriipt generation? [y/n] y
------
After escaping from Tyrell towers with Rachel, Deckard attempts to flee the Earth with her to live on one of the remote colonies, fearing that another Blade Runner would submit Rachel to a "Voight-Kampff" test, and positively identify her as a replicant at some point if the pair remained on Earth. Rachel, now pregnant with Deckard's love child, must help Deckard fight their way off world as nosy officials and investigators attempt to detain them for their involvement in the events in Blade Runner leading to Tyrell's death, and the possibility that the replicants may have been successful in appropriating a means of circumventing their expiration dates and clandestinely transmitted the information offworld. Fearing the worst if Rachel is discovered, She and Deckard secretly depart earth aboard a cargo freighter headed for the Vega colony. There, he and Rachel welcome the birth of their half-replicant son, David, who is born with enhanced physical speed and strength. Many years later, Rachel begins to show signs of unanticipated complications of her replicant physiology due to being alive for so long. The three return to earth seeking answers from the archives of the financial remains of the once mighty Tyrell corporation, which has since fallen under the control of one of Earth's other mega-corporations; One specializing in military hardware and wetware. While on Earth, David makes hip, edgy teenage friends on the rough streets of LA, who help him and his father after the two help them resolve a long-standing gang turf war.
-------
Continue with script generation? [y/n] n
Delete all temporary files and evidence?[y/n] y
Done
Re: (Score:3)
Please don't give this classic movie the crystal skull treatment. It doesn't deserve that.
That was David Koepp (the writer). His was the fifth draft and the first to be approved by the producers.
*headdesk*
He is the "fifth most successful screenwriter of all time in terms of domestic box office receipts with totals at just over $2 billion" according to Wikipedia.
*simultaneous headdesk across America*
Re: (Score:2)
"fifth most successful screenwriter of all time in terms of domestic box office receipts with totals at just over $2 billion"
Ding ding ding... We have our writer!
I decided that I simply won't watch it (Score:5, Interesting)
For me, Blade Runner is an awesome cinematic and intellectual experience, and I did read the "short" story by PK Dick, and loved that also in slightly different ways.
The original Blade Runner was made in a decade when this kind of intellectualism in cinema was still going strong. After the 90s, it all but disappeared. There is NO WAY they can make a decent sequen of an 80s intellectual sci-fi movie today. Maybe they never could have.
Re: (Score:2)
I simply won't watch it, because I believe it's poaching on the intellectual work of Philip K. Dick.
...
Everything is a remix [everythingisaremix.info]. It will be a better world when we admit it. Though this is more likely a case of using name recognition as marketing than creating something new from something old. I'll wait for the reviews to decide whether to give them any money for their efforts.
Re: (Score:3)
undermine Mr. Dick's larger legacy
I LOVE LOVE LOVE PKD, but PKD had basically zero popular legacy to undermine before Ridley Scott got ahold of "Do Androids Dream..." and made it into something rather different. The world has Ridley Scott to thank for waking us up to his works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really didn't think Crystal Skull was that bad but I didn't expect much, especially after the Star Wars prequels.
We the viewers have changed... the novelty has worn off. You can't recapture the same thrill you had as a kid no matter what the director does.
The best you can hope for is a pleasant surprise and a lot of that has to do with adjusting your own expectations.
Shouldn't be that hard for an audience who seemingly never tire of bi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll all go see it anyways.
Not me. If it gets an awful reception, I'm not going to see it in the cinema 'just because'.
As with all these things, I remain cautiously optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Will Deckard's superior Nexus 6 brain cause him to run perpendicular to the giant ring rolling in his direction in a straight line? If so, at least marginally happier than I was at the end of that stinker.
So is he a replicant, or not? (Score:4, Informative)
They'd better be careful how they handle this. It's supposed to be decades into the future, and thus after Deckard and Rachel are both supposed to be dead by their targeted end of life engineering as replicants. You know: "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"
Maybe he will be a different iteration of Deckard, i.e. another replicant clone or something.
Re:So is he a replicant, or not? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was a big fan of the Deckard-as-replicant conspiracy theory, but it was confirmed in an interview not too many years ago that that was not the case. Deckard is a human, as dull as that may be.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Scott himself confirmed that Deckard WAS a replicant, also in an interview.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The book and movie are hugely different. So if you like this concept, and have not yet read the book, I highly recommend it.
That's the problem with a sequel. (Score:2)
If you watch the original with the understanding that Deckard is a replicant then the unicorn origami and the ending have specific, complex, implications.
Now if the sequel shows Deckard as a human then they piss off everyone who prefers those implications. So, in effect, the sequel ruins the story for some people.
If the sequel shows Deckard as an aged replicant ... robots get old? So replicant Deckard is either killed or kills or runs away again at the end. ALREADY BEEN DONE IN THE FIRST MOVIE!
Re: (Score:2)
"It's supposed to be decades into the future"
It was set in 2019, which will probably be the year of the sequel's release. I wonder how they will handle that.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's supposed to be decades into the future"
It was set in 2019, which will probably be the year of the sequel's release. I wonder how they will handle that.
Umbrellas with light-up handles will be out of fashion.
Re:So is he a replicant, or not? (Score:4, Informative)
Deckard and Rachel are both supposed to be dead by their targeted end of life engineering as replicants.
Only the Nexus 6 replicants had targeted end of life (the 4-year lifespan).
Deckard and Rachel can thus not be Nexus 6 replicants if they're still alive 4 years later, but they CAN still be another version of replicant .
You know: "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?".
Humans have an end of life too, you know? We're not exactly immortal.
Re: (Score:2)
Highlander 2 (Score:5, Funny)
Highlander 2 Highlander 2 Highlander 2
That's all I'm saying
Highlander 2
Now that's out of my Highlander 2 system I can look Highlander 2 forward to this new movie.
Highlander 2
Re: (Score:2)
I never saw highlander 2.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a sequel to Highlander?
Re:Highlander 2 (Score:5, Funny)
There was a sequel to Highlander?
No. "There can be only one", remember?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean "there should have been, only one."
Re: (Score:2)
There were actually two.
The second sequel pretended the stupid, implausible script from the first sequel had never happened. And then it produced it's own stupid implausible script.
For all purposes of discussion, anything which claims to be a sequel to Highlander doesn't exist to anybody except the people who wrote them.
Highlander was a story which really couldn't have a sequel, nor should it have. It was beautifully complete on its own, and should have stayed that way.
Even the TV series technically could
Re: (Score:2)
Never do. Trust me. Don't. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
All you need to know about Highlander 2. [rogerebert.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Additionally, Highlander 2. AND ALSO HIGHLANDER FUCKING 3.
Re: (Score:2)
That's all I'm saying
Now that's out of my system I can look forward to this new movie.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Who is this director? (Score:2)
I've never seen any of this directors movies. What make him qualified to work on this?
Re: (Score:2)
Umm he did the original BL and aliens and Gladiator and Exidus and 2001 and eyes wide shut. I think he has lots of chops!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or confusing Ridley Scott with the director (right there in the summary):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
FWIW, I haven't seen any of his movies.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen any of this directors movies. What make him qualified to work on this?
He's not Ridley Scott, and therefore Harrison Ford would potentially be able to put up with him long enough to make another Blade Runner movie. Supposedly, a principal reason why this movie has been delayed so long was because of how much Harrison hated working with Ridley.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to watch 'Enemy'. I failed, it was excruciating boring and slow paced. Characters where flat and the surprise plot was not so much a surprise.
If it gets the crystal skull treatment, it will be entertaining (while insulting your iq) if it will be anything like Enemy it will be hard to stay awake long enough to criticize it.
Nobeta? (Score:2)
Can I have my nobeta back? Because this shit is nearly impossible to read and is not formatted in an acceptable way. This is worse than all the internal monologues Deckard has in Blade Runner.
Predicitions (Score:2)
In the new film, Harrison Ford again will appear as Decker, and again will be assigned to chase down replicants overdue for termination. This time, though, the drama revolves around the difficulties faced by a now-geriatric Decker - things such as repeatedly losing his reading glasses, and his painful and frustrating prostate problems. Not to mention gas.
Then of course, there's the obvious mobility problem faced by an aging Ford/Decker. Fortunately, the mid-21st century has a tried-and-true solution for
Re: (Score:2)
tennis balls on the bottom.
Isn't that a deleted scene from Fifty Shades of Grey?
Actually that may not have been "on"...
Re: (Score:2)
A gassy Harrison Ford would probably elevate that sequel, rather than damage it. It would cross genres into comedy, but eh, that's not the worst that could happen.
This Can't End Well (Score:4, Funny)
Blade Runner was a self-contained story. To my knowledge, Philip K. Dick [wikipedia.org] didn't have a follow-up, and that means some Hollywood types are going to hash and re-hash sequel formulas that lure in the nostalgia crowd (1982 [imdb.com] for chrissakes) and a whole new audience looking for their sci-fi blockbuster fix. Seriously, how can this possibly be good?
Most likely, some new replicant crisis will occur, bigger and badder than before, the Tyrell corporation will have a new head who's more morally ambiguous than before or even downright evil (Tyrell Jr.?), and Deckard has to be lured out of retirement somewhere, still mourning the death of Rachel, because somehow he has the key to solving the problem. An army of super Nexus 50 replicants have escaped from Tyrell's labs. Face-dancer replicants mind-controlled by the corporation have managed to take over key government posts undetected. The President himself may be a replicant, plotting to destroy all humans. Only Deckard has the uncanny talent to ferret them out.
There'll be explosions. Spaceships on fire. Flying cars with no wires visible. A soundtrack by Moby. And since Harrison Ford is so old, his love interest is his daughter by Rachel, with hidden super powers key to solving the crisis, threatened with retirement unless Deckard does what he's told! Edward James Olmos make his triumphant return as Gaff! You know I got at least some of this right.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Philip never wrote a sequel to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, but K.W. Jeter (a friend of his) did write several.
Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Human [wikipedia.org] among others. I have never read any of them despite being a fan of both writers.
Will we see the famous clear raincoat (Score:2)
Please Don't (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you post a comment? (Score:2)
There's no button except "reply to this"
2017 (Score:5, Interesting)
The film is going into production in 2016, which means that it won't see theaters until at least 2017 == THE YEAR THE ORIGINAL MOVIE TAKES PLACE IN.
That means this is no longer a sequel to a sci-fi movie, it's a straight up drama taking place in contemporary times.
And while Blade Runner got a lot right, Deckard makes a video-phone call from a phone booth because in 1980 no-one imagined a smart phone. Will they be using cell-phones in this sequel or will they keep to cannon?
And, having just seen the 2014 Robocop movie; I can honestly say that this upcoming film won't get anything right, as Robocop was a dull, i repeat dull action movie, missing everything that made the original one of the finest films of all time. There was no satire, no pathos, no snarky jabs at the media and American consumerism, and no humor. It was terrible. All it was, was a reminder of how utterly brilliant the original was.
My guess is that after this sequel comes out, we'll be trying to 'unsee it' and waxing poetic about how original and thought provoking the original was, and how flat, and full of fail this film is.
When it's REALLY bad (Score:2)
after this sequel comes out, we'll be trying to 'unsee it' .
Very much this. Only a bad sequel or reboot has the power to leave you so disappointed that you wish you could purge your memory of it.
I've managed to forget nearly everything of The Crow 2, City of Angels (except walking out of the theater) and the Lost in Space reboot. Still working on forgetting Kick Ass 2, Ghostbusters 2, Alien 3, Phantom Menace, and Star Trek 5. Knew better than to see Highlander 2, SpiderToby 2-3, Alien Resurrection, the Robocop reboot, Attack of the Clones... such movies should co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I'm still trying to forget that.
Yep, that was a stinker. I managed to avoid it. Learned my lesson from Last Crusade.
hmm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too Old to Play the Ingenue (Score:2)
I assume that the character of the protagonist in movie will be Rick Deckard III, who will played by some hunky young guy, and Ford will play his grandfather. Maybe they can get Sean Young to play his grandmother.