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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi

'Blade Runner 2099' Series Greenlighted By Amazon With Ridley Scott Executive Producing (deadline.com) 150

Posted by msmash from the up-next dept.
Blade Runner 2099, Amazon Studios' live-action series set in the Blade Runner universe, has been picked up to series for Prime Video. From a report: Ridley Scott, who directed the original 1982 Blade Runner movie, is executive producing the series, a follow-up to the feature film sequel Blade Runner 2049, which was released in 2017 and directed by Denis Villeneuve. Silka Luisa (Shining Girls) wrote the script and is exec producing Blade Runner 2099, which comes from Alcon Entertainment in association with Scott Free Productions and Amazon Studios. The project, which marks the first Blade Runner live-action series, had been in priority development at Amazon Studios.

"The original Blade Runner, directed by Ridley Scott, is considered one of the greatest and most influential science-fiction movies of all time, and we're excited to introduce Blade Runner 2099 to our global Prime Video customers," said Vernon Sanders, head of global television, Amazon Studios. "We are honored to be able to present this continuation of the Blade Runner franchise, and are confident that by teaming up with Ridley, Alcon Entertainment, Scott Free Productions, and the remarkably talented Silka Luisa, Blade Runner 2099 will uphold the intellect, themes, and spirit of its film predecessors." As indicated by Blade Runner 2099's title, the latest installment of the neo-noir sci-fi franchise will be set 50 years after the 2017 film sequel, which was set in 2049.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Blade Runner 2099' Series Greenlighted By Amazon With Ridley Scott Executive Producing More

'Blade Runner 2099' Series Greenlighted By Amazon With Ridley Scott Executive Producing

Comments Filter:

  • ...by having Harrison Ford play Decker again.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

      That's hilarious - I assume you're talking to the argument that Decker was a replicant? Was that debate not settled by him playing Decker again in 2049 - 30 years after the events of Blade Runner (which happened in 2019...)

      • Re:They could settle a debate... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Thursday September 15, 2022 @03:21PM (#62885245) Journal

        You just have to read the book to know he wasn't.

        • Huh? How can you be certain of anything in a Philip K Dick novel? He had severe reservations regarding reality and levels of alienation which intentionally made who was what murky

        • Cool story, but a different story. The Scott himself is on the record as saying Decker is a replicant and that he even tried to make that obvious on the directors cut. What someone else wrote in a book is irrelevant.

          • I recall him saying the opposite (although its possible he's on record saying different things over the years). The interview I saw said he did not intend Deckard to be a replicant, but intentionally left it ambiguous for the viewer.

            • Possibly, I mean the original was quite ambiguous but it may have been under duress as well. Scott is on the record as saying the studio forced him to cut several scenes which make the link far clearer. That's the whole point of the changes to the Director's Cut, and the Final Cut. The unicorns.

              The fact that Deckard dreams of unicorns (and its symbolism).
              More importantly the fact that Gaff *knows* Deckard dreams of unicorns (leaving behind the origami unicorn at the end for Deckard to find), implying that G

              • You're right on this one, however Ford has said Deckard is human and that Scott agrees with him. Scott, himself, I think was noncommital originally. It looks like Scott did a round of interviews when the Bluray was released where he was more open about his thinking. I probably read something from Ford originally and figured he knew what he was talking about.

                The other thing the director's cut did was get rid of the awful voice overs that the studio made them record. Scott said he wanted those long emp

  • So I guess... (Score:4, Funny)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Thursday September 15, 2022 @02:39PM (#62885139)

    ...they fire the lighting guy on day one as well?

  • Not even remotely interested in seeing another one (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JudgeFurious ( 455868 ) on Thursday September 15, 2022 @02:46PM (#62885157)

    I liked Blade Runner. I didn't mind Blade Runner 2049. I didn't really enjoy it all that much either. It was around that time I decided to not watch anymore sequels and that's worked out pretty well for me so far. I don't want to see another Blade Runner.... Alien, Predator, Star Wars, Star Trek, and so on. I'm tired of the studios being locked into the same 6-10 franchises and forever returning to them like they're a sure thing. The only way this stops is if we stop rewarding them for keeping these properties on life support.

    • Re:Not even remotely interested in seeing another (Score:4, Interesting)

      by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Thursday September 15, 2022 @02:49PM (#62885163)

      I very much enjoy(ed) The Orville. It's indeed possible to keep a franchise alive and well, IF it's done right. Star Wars has material for dozens of movies and series as well. The problem is contemporary movie industry trends.

      • The Orville: more Trek than the latest Star Trek.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The Orville is okay, but it kinda proves that going in a slightly new direction was the right move for Trek.

        The first two seasons of The Orville were a lot like TNG. Tame and uncontroversial. Some interesting ideas but they get resolved in a way that preserves the status quo and doesn't say anything very interesting. Season 3 took a few cues from the new Trek shows, and the Original Series, and was a lot better for it.

        That's what this Blade Runner series needs. A new direction that builds on the movies but

        • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by nightflameauto ( 6607976 )

          The new season of the Orville was a preach fest. It was heavy-handed with "THE MESSAGE" because, clearly, nobody watching sci-fi in the year 2022 gets that the world right now is a disaster and we're only making it worse. So much for escapism in sci-fi.

          I don't really mind serious sci-fi, but taking a somewhat spoofy comedy and turning it into a preachy, bitchy serious show? Not the greatest move in my opinion. I think there was a lot of room between where they were and where they went, and they missed the m

      • The latest Orville season is way too serious now. I liked how the last seasons had potty humor mixed in with classic Trek and good stories. The first episode is about suicide and artificial life forms. It has a laugh or two but nothing like before.

      • (walking Onion article here)

        I have not "watched" TV for over 30 years. The commercials... they kill me.

        I heard about "The Orville" a few weeks ago and I was excited to see it. I like some of Seth McFarlane's other properties such as Family Guy and American Dad. It is quite apparent that the man is incredibly smart and has some amount of sobriety.

        I dunno man, The Orville just isn't doing it for me. I watched a few episodes and they were mostly good, but it felt like something was being pushed on me. I am not

    • To be fair, the second Alien and Terminator movies were as good as the first ones.

      • They were also made in 1987 and 1991, respectively, and both by James Cameron. I'd argue that T2 was better than Terminator. I'm not sure if they were better sequels because they were made in a different era or due to the director. The new Avatar comes out in a few months, though, so I guess we'll find out.

        • I see Alien and Terminator as mood/feel/tension movies, which adds fear when introducing the alien/T-1000, while their sequels are action movies where we already know how bad the antagonists are.

          In Alien, we barely see the alien for much of the movie, only the gruesome death of its victims. Only at the end do we see it completely, and it's even more horrifying because we've been stressed the whole movie about it.

          The same thing is true for Terminator, because for most of the movie, we only see Arnold with so

          • Completely agree. Aliens was successful because it took the franchise in a new direction. I won't say it was better than the first, but it was good. I actually enjoyed the other Alien movies more than I should have (assembly cut for number 3). There was really nothing new after 2, though. The theatrical release for 3 was objectively bad. The unfinished assembly cut shows how it could have been good. For 4, I can see what they were trying to do, but it didn't really work.

            Terminator is a bit relentl

    • I I'm tired of the studios being locked into the same 6-10 franchises and forever returning to them like they're a sure thing. The only way this stops is if we stop rewarding them for keeping these properties on life support.

      It's funny, but the modern studios are really conservative, and few want to make OC.

      For one reason or another, modern writing is abysmal. They can't create. But they do deconstruct.

    • I'm tired of the studios being locked into the same 6-10 franchises and forever returning to them like they're a sure thing.

      It's almost like you're completely oblivious the literal hundreds of movies which are released every year. Studios aren't "locked into" anything. They are releasing sequels along side of a metric fuckton of other movies. Don't like em, there's plenty out there if you choose to go look.

      • In a sense, you're both right. Go to any multiplex and all you see are sequels of sequels. These hundreds of movies you refer to don't get the time of day or big screen treatment they deserve. They're harder to find and studios aren't really promoting them as they don't make much money. For better or worse, people seem to want these big budget franchise films and some really good directors end up locked into them, as well as the studios. See my comment below about Denis Villeneuve. I'd really like to
    • I disagree. Making movies (and shows) is risky business; you don't know what's going to land well with audiences. Franchises like those are sure hits. They ensure the businesses of making movies have a block buster that brings in big profits. Those big profits mean that it's more palatable to take risks and try new things.

  • No thanks. Not interested in Yet Another Remake. I'll keep my memories of the original.

    But here's something that may interest cartoon nerds:

    Matt Groening let it slip that both Futurama and Disenchantment have episodes in-production as of Sep 9.

    yes, I like Disenchantment. A lot more than I do a re-hashed movie or series written by people with a very different agenda from the original creator.

    "Comicbook.com's own Jamie Jirak was in attendance at the D23 panel focusing on The Simpsons, wherein the creators

    • No thanks. Not interested in Yet Another Remake. I'll keep my memories of the original.

      Tyrell: We began to recognize in them a strange obsession. After all, they are emotionally inexperienced, with only a few years in which to store up the experiences which you and I take for granted. If we gift them with a past, we create a cushion or a pillow for their emotions, and consequently, we can control them better.

      Deckard: Memories! You're talking about memories!

  • It would be amusing to see this be a sequel to Total Recall 2070 which, while technically a sequel to Total Recall, was also trying real hard to follow up on Blade Runner.

  • Will they have say over content? (Score:5, Funny)

    by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday September 15, 2022 @03:17PM (#62885227) Journal

    It'll be interesting to see how the trend of Amazon series depicting corporate power as inevitable and basically unstoppable collides with a Blade Runner storyline...

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ffkom ( 3519199 )
      Did you see the "Judge Dredd" remake? They basically removed all criticism of the system that was in the original, turning the movie into a shallow action flick.
    • Amazon doesn't have to change that much, though. Deckard and Rachel's escape at the end is bittersweet, at best. We know Rachel will die and Deckard will be hunted. If he's really a replicant, he may die too. Hauer's final monologue is heartbreaking, but nothing really changes. The company won and will continue making replicants. The under current is that all of this is bad. Amazon needs to change that under current, but not the actual story.

  • Generic SF with a "Blade Runner" label? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Babel-17 ( 1087541 ) on Thursday September 15, 2022 @03:18PM (#62885231)
    Oh look, it's raining, and there's groovy lighting, it must be in the Blade Runner universe. Color me pessimistic. Philip K. Dick left us with lots of good ideas that could be explored, so I hope that material gets mined. The Mood Organ, Dr. Smiles (from The 3 Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch), Perky Pat, and so on. The Pris Frauenzimmer character from We Can Build You was an important broken archetype to PKD, and should finally make an appearance on screen. Pris in the original Blade Runner film gave us just a taste of how calculating that kind of character could be. PKD would sometimes share a melancholy where he saw humanity as a collection of broken individuals, broken simulacras even. That's what we shared with the Androids, and why ultimately it was unimportant if Deckard was an android or not.
  • So this is gonna be a sitcom, right?
    Because I can't believe that after 80 years they wouldn't have come to some sort of solution for the "replicant problem". One way or another.
  • We all know the original Blade Runner was a masterpiece of theater. I'm glad no sequels were ever made and none will ever be made. Sometimes you have to break the mold.

  • 2049 was shit and this will be worse.

    Hollywood just feeds on the corpses of dead creators.

    Like Yoko Ono.

    • I like parts of 2049. Maybe "aspects" of it is a better word. I enjoy Villeneuve's early films and wish he hadn't gotten pulled into these big franchise films. Dune worked slightly better than 2049, but I feel like his style is too confined in these movies.

  • I am so stoked to have another one or two off escape into another world, turned into a endless universe that only stops when the money ends. I am far more tolerant of a TV show, comic, or even a series of books being turned into movies, than movies going the other way. Especially if there's only one of them, movies are there to tell a big story, the other mediums mentioned are small stories every week or so, and when they get a long or 2 part or even movie it seems so much more special.

    What's a blade runner

  • As long as they don't screw it up like the rings of power I can see potential here.
  • From:

    "The original Blade Runner, directed by Ridley Scott, is considered one of the greatest and most influential science-fiction movies of all time, and we're excited to introduce Blade Runner 2099 to our global Prime Video customers," said Vernon Sanders, head of global television, Amazon Studios

    To:
    The original Blade Runner was an outstanding success. And now that we are completely out of any even half-decent original ideas, we plan to milk that success, again. Even though the last time we did that, we lost $80million. [movieweb.com]

  • Rehash the hash again. How about coming up with something new again? Hollywood is putrid with rot.

  • I hope it's better then that boring 2049 movie.

Slashdot Top Deals

Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists? -- Kelvin Throop III

Close