Friday
Aug192011
5 Frames That Accurately Describe Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" Sequel Plans
Friday, August 19, 2011 at 2:00PM 
"Roy Batty" being Blade Runner and "Tyrell" being Ridley Scott, you see.
This doesn't end well for Tyrell/Ridley.
Ridley Scott has never been able to keep his hands off his seminal scifi masterwork Blade Runner (1982) always smudging the prints with his restless dirty fingers. Though we'll always love him for making it it's going to be the death of him (artistically) if he proceeds with the sequel/prequel/whatever. The creation will turn against the creator. It's an inevitability.
tagged Blade Runner, Ridley Scott, sci-fi fantasy horror, sequels
Blade Runner, Ridley Scott, sci-fi fantasy horror, sequels
Reader Comments (13)
As a proud owner of the uber-penultimate four disc collector's edition of Blade Runner I'm gonna wait and see what he does with Prometheus before I start clanging the death knell. I reserve the right of retraction if word leaks that Harrison Ford will be stenciled on the reboot's marquee.
On the other hand Alcon' Entertainment's production credits are very discouraging...
I've learned to let go of all the attachments to genre properties that I loved as a kid being up for grabs by Hollywood looking for a quick and cheap buck.
I'm holding back all opinions (while the little voice inside me screams "NO NO NO! Do NOT fuck with a masterpiece! This is not a freakin' comic book movie!") until it's released.
Well at least his brother's not doing something silly like remaking The Wild Bunch....what the?!
I think I'd like to see a sequel. Well, I'm not sure I'd like it with the same characters, but he could make some cool stuff just using that same universe. And if he got some of the writers from the 1st movie back, I don't see how could he not make a good film. But I'll admit it won't be as good as the first one. That's nearly impossible.
At any rate it's all Roy Batty's fault:
Personally, I'm not a fan of the original film - tried to get through it on three separate occasions and fell asleep - but I still don't think they should be making a sequel. Rarely do sequels made so far apart from the original turn out well. Hell, it rarely happens at all!
Also, the original is more of a cult classic than it was a box office heavyweight, so I don't see the financial gain either. However, they're saying it will take place in a similar universe as the first film but not be connected to its plot, so maybe it could work (you can see the article at: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/21531/more-on-the-blade-runner-follow-up).
The Scott's? Not the most...daring filmmakers, but good at what they do. (Though Ridley (Blade Runner, Alien, Thelma & Louise) does have a better track record (and a wider palate) than Tony (True Romance is the only great movie I see) when it comes to movies.)
Newbies who have never seen Blade Runner, be warned. The original '82 theatrical version is NOT a masterpiece by any means. The 2007 theatrically released Final Cut version is the ultimate 'director's vision' of the film and the only one that should be taken seriously. And at that, perfection.
Not gonna even think about this new sequel until I hear more about the writers/story/casting.
Daniel Armour -- that article is ever-so-slightly reassuring.
Mark -- my favorite is the first director's cut (which is definitely an improvement over the 82 theatrical) I really don't need films to constantly be polished up and aided with modern technology because films are meant to be permanent objects. I LIKE to see grain in my 70s pictures, you know? And I like 80s pictures to have 80s special effects ... there's nothing grosser than seeing a CGI Jabba the Hut inserted into the original model & puppet films.
that said the 2007 Final Cut of Blade Runner is amazing to look at so i just contradicted myself. haha
also "I want more life." Points to Vern.
Over the almost three decades since it's first release, I've developed a soft spot for all the instantiations I've seen. Ironically I find watching marathons of the three versions I own more satisfying and stimulating than many masterpiece sequels-- Star Wars, Aliens, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix. (Yes, in my house, the Matrix trilogy is a masterpiece, what?!) That is when the pacing doesn't lull me to sleep, to dream...
In defense of the original American release. As a teenager I was weened on the detached, discordant voice-over, which I now enjoy either for its nostalgic spoon-fed camp or as an ingeniously unreliable narrator. As a fan of Kubrick's Shining I appreciate the splicing of the "happy ending" source material. Besides, it suggests that Rachel and Deckard are escaping to Eden to enjoy many happy endings (pun, unfortunately, intended). After so much existential turmoil, come on, don't they deserve it?
Of course the more mature versions need no defense. But I'm also a fan of Scott's Legend, from which he spliced those existentially suggestive unicorn dream sequences. Where would the mythology be without them? Cycle back to the voice-over and happy ending, as I've been doing (and enjoying) for almost 30 years.