Ridley Scott confirmed for Blade Runner pre/sequel Ridley Scott is to return to his vision of a futuristic Los Angeles by directing a follow-up to the 1982 SF classic Blade Runner. Rumours of a sequel have graced t'interweb for some time now, but the camera is most definitely set to roll with Scott in the director seat, after Alcon Entertainment - the studio which secured the …
Sorry let me put that another way...
NNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hollywood continues its current policy of remaking/ruining classic movies.........
Right on man. The number of brilliant sci-fi books I've read that would make absolute blockbusters but that Hollywood refuses to touch is staggering. Consider Harry Harrison's "Deathworld" and "To The Stars" trilogies; Julian May's "Galactic Milieu" and "Saga of the Pliocene Exiles" epics; Greg Bear's "Eon", "Eternity", "Forge of God", and "Anvil of Stars"; Vernor Vinge's "Marooned in Realtime"; Brian Aldiss's "Helliconia" trilogy (particularly relevant in this age of environmental awareness and climate change)... .the list is endless, and if handled properly would make the most awesome movies imaginable.
Actually, there's the rub: "if handled properly." Given Hollywood's propensity for butchering books to the point where the only things in common between book and movie are the title and the names of a few characters, perhaps it's better that these books remain only as books. Unless some non-Hollywood filmmaker does it. Australian, Canadian and English filmmakers are all far superior to Hollywood's tripe.
Just leave the franchises alone...FFS.
Bladerunner is a great movie and was made good by, the script, the actors and the technology available at the time, which while quirky, was believable.
These days the CG tech gives films an almost unrealistic sheen.
Not to mention the fact that Hollywood itself appears to be running out of fresh ideas. Okay I got another one.
Lets make Pulp Fiction 2. The people who loved it, are gonna come flocking thus earning us big box office $$$, but who gives a sheet if the films a turkey, which will almost spoil the enjoyment of the original.
There are some great books and minds out there that can provide original entertainment without having to re-visit something.
Sometimes you just gotta know when to leave something alone. Not doing so can leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
As long as it has NOTHING to do with the original then it might work. I.e. work in the universe like the old Westwood game did, but other than a fleeting appearance in an esper photo and a few references to events in the film there is nothing from the film apart from locations.
Would be cool to see something a bit closer to the book, i.e. more emphasis on lack of animals and the kibble but im not holding my breath.
But it will probably be another shitty 're-imagining' meh.
(Nuke cus thats essentially the prequel in one word)
Sorry but you are wrong on the internet old chum.
The Jetter (two t's btw) sequel was actually surprisingly good, given the nature of his usual violent, rambling drivel.
I would assume if they are calling it 'Blade Runner 2' then it is indeed based on his novel, but we'll see.
Oh, and I'm totally past caring too!
I would love to see something actually more akin to the book. There was a lot to do with spirituality and the mechanics of belief in the book that was absent from the film.
Well actually, apart from "it's in the future, it has replicants and a bounty hunter", there was very, very little in common.
But I fear that this will be another in a long line of prequels that tarnish the overall legacy of the franchise -I'm looking at you Lucas!
a director (may even have been Scott himself) describing how it took decades for the film industry to start doing sound right, and they had the same issues with the transition to colour - a few films got it right at the start, but film-makers generally had to learn the use of the new tech by hard trial-and-error. His point being that it would likely be that long also before good 3D was more than the odd fluke.
They still can't get sound right... it's usually very badly miked and the only time you can hear dialogue really clearly is when they've redubbed it back in as it was incomprehensible even to the director... What doesn't help is when the soundtrack music overpowers the actors... who should really be sent to diction classes to stop them from mumbling...
So it was you!
You where the audience the studios had in mind when they insisted on the optimistic ending. You were the one the studios thought wouldn't understand what was going on when they stuck the Blade Runner for Dummies narration on the top of it.
Are you out of your mind, man!!!???
If I was coming at it having never seen the film, the original cut is far better. It's better paced for a start, and the narration suits the Film Noir style of it.
But once you've seen the film, and liked it, then the (myriad) Directors Cuts are better. It's like opera - you know the story, you know what's going on; you want to sit back, put yourself into the world and enjoy the performances.
But, show someone who has never seen the film the last Director's Cut, and they've lost interest by 30 minutes in, when nothing has happened, none of the characters have been properly introduced, and you've no idea where the film is going, or whether it'll be worthwhile to get there.
I don't like the dove taking off into a blue sky in the middle of the night, but otherwise the original version was fine - they drove off into the wilderness where Deckard shoots Rachael in the head to save her from being hunted down by Holden or Gaff.
The voice over was perfect for that Noir feel.
Probably you are. The original isn't bad, exactly, but the voiceover is way too cheesy. You can just hear the studio chairpolisher saying "It's police, yeah? Let's put a Mike Hammer kind of voiceover on it. Kids love that." And the ending - WTF?! "Suddenly it was all wonderful and they all lived happily ever after"?! Ye gods.
Ridders..... why oh why oh why?!?!?!?
what have we done that has displeased you soooo much that you would adulterate one of your best movies in this way?
Are you channelling Lucas? Is that it? maybe we can help?
And I see you are also planning on fucking up "Alien" too... :-|
Let's not get carried away.
The remake of Lone Ranger has been cancelled because costs were going to spiral out of control.
(Side note : How the KCUF do you spend a quarter of a billion dollars on a few horses and cowboy hats?)
So how bleeding much is a Blade Runner 2013 version going to cost?
"Don't bet against Russell Crowe being involved. After Gladiator the star has appeared in a number of other Scott flicks."
Oh fucking hell NO.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO...
The mans a fucking arsehole with all the acting talent of a big brother contestant....
So, Mr Scott, just to re-iterate.. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
Im just in the process of "obtaining" the blu-ray rip, er sorry, release...So i can remind myself just how good a film it is....
Why 3D?
Is it because you can do something truly creative with it?
Or is it because 3D makes a bit more cash for the studios?
I suspect the latter. Will you shoot in 3D or just send it to Taiwan like the majority for a bollocks "conversion"?
When someone actually presents a valid point to 3D beyond just gimmick (and yes I'm even looking at you "oh there are no in your face 3D gimmicks in Avatar"(bullshit) Cameron), I'll pay attention.
"This is a total reinvention"
Oh god. So remake then.
I'm actually quietly optimistic regarding this. The key word used is "reimagining" rather than remake. As long as it follows the suggestion of merely being set in the same universe with none of the original characters making a return then it has a lot of promise. Just please, not Russell Crowe.
From what little I've heard about Prometheus, it's moved from being a straight Alien prequel to something that sounds influenced by The Forever War and possibly some of Olaf Stapledon's books. It could actually prove to be something more intelligent than just people getting eaten by Aliens.
I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being much more influenced by the book, as Lottie suggests.
..."never work without 3D again"....
I hope Scott's not getting past it - he has always been one of the very, very few modern directors who can consistently produce something very special without relying on gimmicks or star appeal to hold up shoddy work or threadbare stories. I have some faith; the original is such a tough act to follow that it's hard to imagine he'd take it on unless he thought he could do a second film the justice it deserved while dovetailing it sympathetically with the original story.
I confess I cringed when I heard Lord of the Rings was going to be attempted again, but Peter Jackson managed near perfection from a book just set up for epic Fail, so just maybe Scott can pull it off and surprise us all.
Somehow I missed the "Blade Runner tops sci-fi movie poll" story when it originally appeared so only saw it by following the link in this article; and since the comments on it have been closed I hope there are no objections to my pointing out something that no-one seems to have noticed the first time round.
It wasn't a poll. It was "... the result of heated debate/scuffles between the frazzled writers of Total Sci-Fi" or so it states on the source article (had anyone bothered to read the preamble before the actual list started).
Now, while I personally agree with their choice of Blade Runner for the top slot, not everybody does. A quick Google of "Best SF movies" gives an IMDB list where it's currently ranked at 15.
bah, it's not like they're gonna set fire to all the copies of "Blade Runner". They won't be abe to take that one away from us for now. Don't mind if they try to do a second part, although I don't expect anything good, they'll do CG instead of real photography.
Regarding setting fire to all copies...the original Star Wars trilogy...is there anyway to get that on DVD or Blu-Ray without the 3D crap Lucas added at the end of the 90s? It actually ruins it for me.
Oi Ridley NO!
You've already got The Forever War to make. Get cracking on that instead and give us the most impressive and intelligent new sci-fi movie since Blade Runner.
You did Blade Runner and it was great now just leave it. There is so much new material that needs to be filmed, what is with this obsession of retreading old ideas. Hollywood has been gelded.
I wrote a feature with Syd Mead, the designer behind the amazing cars and sets in blade runner. He is not convinced about a new Blade Runner. http://bit.ly/qY9mbM.
While I love Blade Runner, and written a lot about it, I just can't see it being ground breaking and only really marginally money making. There's so many reasons for this. The only way it could work is a mind blowing script, new effects and a desperate love by cinema goers for the Film Noire genre. Or the legendary director takes the story into a complete reboot. But what does that say about us? One of the points about the underlying theme of blade Runner is consumerism and the re-has of retro. Would Sir Ridley pickup much from our current culture? Post Modernism has come and gone, so what's left?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
