Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Please No, Not a Blade Runner Sequel

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the don't-ruin-perfect dept.

Sci-Fi 585

bowman9991 submitted a story that ought to make even the most stone-hearted amongst you cry. He says "Travis Wright, one of the writers behind Eagle Eye, has been working on a sequel to Ridley Scott's Sci-Fi classic Blade Runner. Script proposals have explored the nature of the off-world colonies, what happens to the Tyrell Corporation in the wake of its founder's death, and what would become of Rachel. Travis said he intends to write a script 'with or without anyone's blessings.' Director Ridley Scott appears interested in a sequel too. At Comic-Con in 2007 Ridley said, 'If you have any scripts, you know where to send them.' It's doubtful he'll have time anytime soon though. He's already stated his next two science fiction films will be an adaptation of Aldous Huxley's Brave New Word with Leonardo DiCaprio and an adaptation of Joe Haldeman's The Forever War."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I've got a better idea (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638257)

How about you devote all the energy, time, and effort that you would have put into doing yet another ill-advised sequel or remake into writing something ORIGINAL? Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs, or Slumdog Millionaire. At the very least, you'll be able to sleep at night. Do you really want to die being best known as the "asshole who wrote that god-awful sequel to Blade Runner"?

And, on a related note, if you're a filmmaker and have ever thought to yourself "Hey, I bet a remake of 'It's a Wonderful Life' starring Ice Cube and some sassy kids would be great!" please, dear God, stay out of Hollywood.

Re:I've got a better idea (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26638299)

Do you really want to die being best known as the "asshole who wrote that god-awful sequel to Blade Runner"?

Depends on how many million I made off that movie.

Myself, I'll wait for the Final Ultimate Director's Cut Armageddon Release of this one.

Re:I've got a better idea (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638485)

Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs, or Slumdog Millionaire.

You list three good original movies but I counter that there is so much more to them than just needed money to make. Look at the directors/writers: Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino & Danny Boyle respectively. Now look at those three directors/writers names and notice how they rarely--if ever--attach themselves to bad projects. I think the three movies you listed were kind of like pet projects of these directors and there's not a lot of these great movies laying around just waiting to receive funding with the vision that these three movies you listed had.

You think you have a better idea but these studios have one directive: make money. And that's what they'll do & they'll do it better than you would. This isn't art, this is business. You aren't going to be taken seriously if you point Resevoir Dogs that made $147,839 on opening weekend in the states or Momento that made $235,488 on opening weekend in the states. Those amounts of money are a blip on the radar to what a franchise name makes them within three days.

Re:I've got a better idea (5, Informative)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638591)

yet another ill-advised sequel or remake into writing something ORIGINAL? Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs

Reservoir Dogs is a remake of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_on_Fire_(1987_film) [wikipedia.org]

Re:I've got a better idea (1, Funny)

hahiss (696716) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638617)

Reservoir Dogs was a cheap rip-off of City on Fire. But thanks for playing "Hey, I'm tired of remakes, let's make something original!"

Re:I've got a better idea (3, Interesting)

Cowmonaut (989226) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638829)

Oh come off it. Sure both are about a gang of thieves and a jewelery heist with an undercover cop, just like Cloverfield and Godzilla are just movies of a town getting destroyed. If you've watched both Reservoir Dogs and City on Fire you won't come close to confusing the two. The way the stories are told are completely different and an important part of why the film is good.

Some scenes are pretty much the same as well in the movies, just like the car chase at the end of Death Proof was straight out of Vanishing Point. Not really a knock off, but you can see where it came from. Tarrantino isn't alone in doing that either.

Re:I've got a better idea (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638641)

nobody in hollywierd can write anything original. The past 2 years and the next 4 will be full of remakes. Cripes they are starting remakes at the point that it's getting ridiculous.

I'm betting that we will probably see a remake of Star wars 3,4,5 within 10 years.

Everything fresh I have seen is coming from Indie people. The films that were at Sundance and the other film festivals that are NOT studio entries were fantastic.

But no, Hollywierd wont make anything new, If they can remake it or do a sequel they'll do that.

I just hate the idea of seeing ET, and Howard the Duck remade.

but I know they are currently tossing around the idea to remake close encounters, a buddy of mine at one of the big efx houses was asked about it.

Re:I've got a better idea (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638743)

Think that's worse than making stupid sequels of movies that weren't good in the first place, aka "cinema of the 90s"?

Re:I've got a better idea (2, Informative)

cvd6262 (180823) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638687)

Or "rebooting" existing franchises....

Let's see, Bond? Check. Batman? Check. Star Trek? Check(1)? Friday 13th? Check. Am I forgetting anything?

(1) Yeah, more of a prequel than a reboot, but watch: The cannon will be altered by this installment.

Re:I've got a better idea (1)

Cowmonaut (989226) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638899)

At least in the case of Batman there are multiple incarnations of it already so it makes some sense. Aside from the two Batman Movies with Michale Keaton, the style wasn't really that dark gothic many fans enjoy. This time around they're going the Dark Knight approach, which is a version of Batman I very much enjoy.

Have to say I loved Batman: The Animated Series more than most though. Watched that as a kid and going back and watching it now, its a lot darker than I remember and pretty good actually.

Re:I've got a better idea (1)

DrOct (883426) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638809)

Slumdog Millionaire was based on a book. That's not a knock against the movie (it was great), or against the idea of basing movies on books, some of the best movies ever made have been based on books, but it does kind of undermine your "ORIGINAL" thing. Also, others have pointed out that Reservoir Dogs was a remake (though I had no idea that was the case until I read the comments so I can't really fault you for that, as I'd have likely made the same mistake). But quibbling aside, I do agree with your general point, it would be nice to see more new ideas, and fewer sequels and remakes coming out of hollywood.

Re:I've got a better idea (2, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638947)

"How about you devote all the energy, time, and effort that you would have put into doing yet another ill-advised sequel or remake into writing something ORIGINAL?"

Most of what is original isn't if you looked hard enough and had enough time. There are only so many themes that have wide enough commercial or financial appeal to a general audience. Where you can see this a lot is in video games: Early video games were much more original then later ones. People I think tend to forget that the expense of doing original stuff at the quality people today expect is a large part of the problem. That and lots of great stuff fails financially, lets face it, most people have average tastes. The further away you get from the average the smaller your audience because it is less widely appealing. Let's not also forget the marketing (or lack thereof) for many original works.

Re:I've got a better idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26638955)

While not at all a remake, the 'big' idea from Memento was done three years earlier by Tom Tykwer (from Lola Rennt fame) in Winterslafer

(guy with no short term memory has to write everything down to remember it)

Re:I've got a better idea (1)

zodwallopp (1243130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638961)

Or even take an OLD idea and do it, like Ender's Game... something not a squeal for crying out loud. OK, say you're stuck on doing a sequel... then do something that is out of left field. F. Paul Wilson's 'The Keep' is part of a five book horror series. The next book is called 'The Tomb' and is based around a very unique and incredibly movie friendly character called Repairman Jack. He's such an interesting character that they've done 6 spin off novels of him, two decades after the last publication of 'The Tomb'. (shakes fist at Hollywood)

Hold still please... (1)

concoursrider (1405071) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638267)

If you don't blink as you read this, you just might be a replicant.

Re:Hold still please... (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638337)

Let me tell you about my mother.

Sure, why not? (4, Funny)

Psmylie (169236) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638275)

"Travis Wright, one of the writers behind Eagle Eye, has been working on a sequel to Ridley Scott's Sci-Fi classic Blade Runner."

Go ahead. I write fanfics, too.

Re:Sure, why not? (1)

Apparition-X (617975) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638517)

Aye. And while I know nothing about your writing skills, I am absolutely confident that you would do better than Travis Wright, based upon his work from Eagle Eye. Eagle Eye was a giant steaming pile of garbage with virtually nothing to recommend it in any respect. The dialogue was terrible, and the plot worse. Travis Wright should be locked up and never allowed access to a pen, computer, pencil, crayons, or anything else that he might use to right with ever again.

Re:Sure, why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26638883)

Surely you're overlooking the merit of Travis Wright and Uwe Boll's new film, Bible II, the Return of JC. "Jesus is back, and he's pissed!" A resurrected muscular dope-smoking son of god fights the Romans for marijuana rights in this thrilling tale of justice and revenge. Featuring cameos by Pam Anderson, Angelina Jolie, and Amy Winehouse as the Emperor's daughter. Featuring enough special effects to overcome the utter lack of directing ability. Also stars Keanu Reaves as God.

Re:Sure, why not? (4, Funny)

pisto_grih (1165105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638891)

You seem to be having trouble righting with your computer, why not donate it to Travis?

Are you sure ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26638277)

Please don't spoil original !

Re:Are you sure ? (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638455)

Bah, don't worry. I'm sure Keanu will do a fine job as Decker.

Re:Are you sure ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26638799)

Decker

Deckard

Re:Are you sure ? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638849)

Oh god.. don't give them ideas.

Brave New World... (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638281)

Leonardo Dicaprio in Brave New World? Great. I can't wait to see him running around on screen yelling "I'm the king of the world! Shit! Shit! Where's my soma?!?"

Re:Brave New World... (2, Funny)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638355)

SPOILER ALERT: Leonardo diCaprio (sp?) IS Soma.

Re:Brave New World... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638779)

Not quite. He can make me snooze and he can make me apathetic, but so far he failed to make me happy.

Thinking about it, maybe he could star in a remake of Soylent Green. I'm sure he'd be great in the name part.

Re:Brave New World... (1)

I cant believe its n (1103137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638811)

"It was as if my brain went into protective mode and shut down to prevent damage." - Titanic survivor (the movie)

DiCaprio ... (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#26639067)

... as long as by the end of the movie he is a pale blue icicle, slowly sinking down into the deep blue sea, then I'll watch it with a smile on my face

Super Suck (4, Insightful)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638287)

Without a Phillip K. Dick story to bastardize, this script could go into turbo-shitty land really fast.

there ARE authorized sequel books though (4, Informative)

Oo.et.oO (6530) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638629)

Maybe authorized, but not good. (1)

FlameWise (84536) | more than 5 years ago | (#26639013)

I read that and it's rubbish. Wouldn't touch it again. You'll beg for it to end.

Net a sequel? (3, Funny)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638293)

I don't understand...are they fighting in an arena? Are they fishing for sequels? I'm confused. Unless Taco didn't have the 20 seconds to double check the headline for a typo.

Re:Net a sequel? (4, Funny)

kalirion (728907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638527)

They're obviously going for the ultimate cyberpunk by merging it with a Neuromancer sequel.

Yet another ill-advised sequel.... (0, Troll)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638309)

Yes, it's true: if you're a filmmaker and have ever thought to yourself "Hey, I bet a remake of 'It's a Wonderful Life' starring Ice Cube and some sassy kids would be great!" please, dear God, stay out of Hollywood.

Also, there's no Windows 7 Core edition for those of us who want to go back to a command line interface? No Windows 7 Ultimate Plus 100 that cost $100 more than Ultimate and includes the very useful feature of being allowed to download any one installation only digital copy of any Microsoft game valued at $25 or less? No Windows 7 Diamond that comes in a box with lots of bling and has a diamond screensaver unique only to that version for only $500 more than the Windows 7 Ultimate Plus 100 edition?

Come on Microsoft - how can I show that I like to spend tons of extra money for promised but never delivered features. Maybe they could try a new tactic - sell Windows 7 Beta for half the cost of Ultimate (but the license is only good for 6 months) and Windows 7 Metered (charges you for every second of time you use the Ultimate version - say 1 cent per minute. That's only $14.40 per 24 hours of use (so remember to shut down).

Why am I hearing The Who's song "Won't Get Fooled Again" all of the sudden...Smidge is a troll...and he's baaaacckkkk. Slashdot faggotry at its finest.

=Smidge=

Highlander (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638319)

Please take a lesson from Highlander: there can be only one.

Re:Highlander (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638789)

So you want to see 4 really shitty sequels and maybe a shitty TV series?

Re:Highlander (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26638825)

Hey now... Duncan may not have been Conner, but he was decent.

As for the movies... no comment.

Re:Highlander (4, Informative)

estarriol (864512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638935)

The TV series (after 1.5 seasons) was very far from shitty - it was better than anything bar the first 70 minutes or so of the only Highlander film. In other words, the TV series is really damn good.

Re:Highlander (1)

drb_chimaera (879110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638879)

Or at the very least the Matrix - There should be only one :)

Heinlein, please? (5, Interesting)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638339)

Since Scott has a track record of putting out decent science fiction cinema, could we PLEASE get him to do some Heinlein? Or, if that's not "percussive" enough, some Niven-Pournelle? A shortened version of A Mote in God's Eye should have enough bang-bang to keep the kiddies happy, and cool aliens that turn from "advanced peaceful society" to "Freakish monster hoards" by the end.

Re:Heinlein, please? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638545)

For Niven-Pournelle, give me a movie version of Lucifer's Hammer. Comet hits Earth, doesn't destroy the world, just civilization - you know, two weeks of no deliveries to your local grocery store or gas station. As they say, hilarity ensues.

Re:Heinlein, please? (2, Funny)

phorest (877315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26639095)

I JUST got that message from Amazon today:

Hello from Amazon.com.
We're writing about the order you placed on January 27 2009 08:31 PST (Order# 003-4511132-3261008).
Delivery of your package has been delayed due to weather or a natural disaster. UPS will deliver the package as soon as possible. We apologize for this unavoidable delay and appreciate your patience. The items listed below are included in this shipment (Tracking Id '1Z415@@@@@@@@@@@'):

Re:Heinlein, please? (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638565)

Careful, if you ask for Heinlein you'll just get The Puppet Masters starring Tom Cruise.

Re:Heinlein, please? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638633)

Seconded. I'd give both my right hands to see good CGI Moties.

Re:Heinlein, please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26638653)

Might I suggest the Rama trilogy by AC Clark. Granted there was a movie listed as made in IMDB but it's not been released (or finished?).

Re:Heinlein, please? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26638695)

from "advanced peaceful society" to "Freakish monster hoards" by the end.

Homonyms don't work that way.

Horde.

Re:Heinlein, please? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638723)

He has a lot of good books, but it would be hard for hollywood to make them into a two hour film. Short stories are better.

His later works could be made indie of hollywood. Job, A comedy of manner comes to mind. Friday would sell tickets, or To Sail Beyond the Sunset. Some action, compressible.

I think we are all waiting for A Stranger in a Strange Land miniseries.

Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (4, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638353)

I don't get the whole "this sequel is terrible, it shouldn't have been made!" thing. You don't have to watch it. The fact it's been made doesn't affect the original in any way whatsoever. Chill out.

Besides, there's an outside chance it could be really good. The Bladerunner idea is a great starting point.

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638491)

They're under the (mistaken) assumption that the author would write something they would like, instead, if they didn't write this.

They're pretty much totally wrong, of course. If there was something better they could do, they'd already be working on it.

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (4, Insightful)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638581)

I disagree. For folks that have a passion about a world created by a movie, then a crappy sequel taints that world. For some of the examples that have been posted, having a sequel to Highlander (even with the esteemed Mario Van Peeples *ugh*) ruined the story by shredding the conclusion of the first. "There can be only one, except for this other guy, so make that two. Yeah, only two. Unless we jump to the future, if that's cool?" The fourth Indiana Jones was so terrible, I refuse to accept the stories as anything more than a trillogy. Some movies are as good as they are because of how they end. A sequel - in the case of a story that wasn't designed to be multiple episodes (see "Rings, Lord of the") seems to eliminate the important element of Conclusion that completes the first movie. Exactly what would a sequel to Close Encounters of the Third Kind bring us?

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (4, Insightful)

Rary (566291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638749)

For folks that have a passion about a world created by a movie, then a crappy sequel taints that world.

Which takes us right back to the GP's original point: "You don't have to watch it."

The Highlander sequels did nothing to ruin the original classic for me, because I never saw them, and never will.

So, here's my advice. When/If the movie comes out, wait until everyone else has seen it so you can get some reviews, then decide whether or not you will go see it based on those reviews. If everyone says it sucks and "taints the world" of the original, then stay away from the theatre.

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26638901)

Exactly what would a sequel to Close Encounters of the Third Kind bring us?

- Cooler looking aliens.
- The return of Richard Dreyfuss? Maybe crazier this time.
- A reason why they visited.
- The answer to everyone's question... WTF was that red dot spaceship and WTF piloted it?
- Another cool alien theme music.
- Muppets.
- scantily clad women in space.
- cooler looking, scantily clad Muppets. In space.
- more money?

The possibilities are endless.

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (1)

isecore (132059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638593)

The fact it's been made doesn't affect the original in any way whatsoever. Chill out.

Except that it's mere existence will taint the original. We who haven't seen a godawful sequel will still have to content with all the zombies out there running around shouting things like "the second one was soooo much better".

If there's only one movie, it will stand on it's own. As soon as a classic movie is turned into a franchise, then the quality and what made the movie a classic will disappear - no matter if you ignore it or not. It'll get turned into yet another money-machine where Hollywood chops off it's own heads in order to make a profit.

Besides, there's an outside chance it could be really good.

No, it'll be a crappy FX-driven horrorshow without any of the gravitas of the original. Just look at the crap that a majority of studios spew out. That's what we'll get. Even if Ridley himself directs it (doubtful) it'll still be a cardboard cutout in comparison.

I mean, I still cringe at the fact that there exist book-sequels to the movie. Much less would I want an actual movie-sequel to it.

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (4, Funny)

neoform (551705) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638735)

I think it's more about soiling the memory of something good.

It's kinda like when you meet a hot girl, you hit it off, then your friend tells you she has a penis.

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (4, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638737)

dude... did you even watch Doom, how about Judge Dredd?

People committed suicide in the theaters over how bad those movies were.

Riots in the streets for 12 days, total dead was 15,000 opening weekend alone.

Do you really want that shitty of a movie to happen again?

DO YOU?!!?!?!

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (1)

Covert Penguin (1094443) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638785)

I don't get the whole "this sequel is terrible, it shouldn't have been made!" thing. You don't have to watch it. The fact it's been made doesn't affect the original in any way whatsoever. Chill out.

You obviously don't have a 10 year old son whose appreciation for Star Wars or Indiana Jones has been irreparably damaged by his having watched what should have never been a 4th installment in the franchise before seeing the original.

Besides, there's an outside chance it could be really good. The Bladerunner idea is a great starting point.

Let me tell you about my mother...

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (1)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638943)

The fact it's been made doesn't affect the original in any way whatsoever.

I completely disagree. 100%

Look at "The Day The Earth Stood Still" I am a fan of the original and think the new one sucked more than anyone will admit.

The Earth "standing still" was a warning, not a conclusion. If they had the power to make the earth "stand still" why, in the new one, would the aliens choose to kill all the humans first? The new one just sucked. The plot changes made to make it a "green" message made it stupid.

The original was written and acted by the "A" list of their time. The sequel was done by the "C" list of our time.

It "taints" the artistry and message of the first.

I can go on, "Time Machine," "War of the Worlds," etc. I can just bet that the new "Star Trek" movie is going to KILL any hope of a return to an optimistic and philosophical "Star Trek."

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (1)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#26639059)

I'll agree that the first one sucked bad (although the majority of that was in the second half of the film, which seemed more like a hastily cobbled together amalgam of things instead of, you know, a well thought out progression), but in this one making the Earth "stand still" was more a side effect of what it took to stop Gort, it wasn't the intent of the alien's to deprive Earth of modern technology.

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (1)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#26639107)

Not first, remake. Sorry, that is what I get for not using the preview button.

Forever War.. (2, Insightful)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638359)

I guess we can thank GW for starting the forever war.

But seriously, I hope they don't fuck it up. One of my favorites!

As long as this is going to suck... (1)

Corpuscavernosa (996139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638367)

... let's just go big and get Uwe Boll [petitiononline.com] in on it.

Re:As long as this is going to suck... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26639023)

Quite seriously. If I ever happen to run that guy over with my car, the skid marks will be behind the body. Because I have to stop to make sure I hit him right.

What about a prequel? (1)

The Yuckinator (898499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638379)

I think this is a terrible idea. The original story didn't really lend itself to a sequel, and given that the whole "electric sheep" aspect of the book wasn't really dealt with in the movie (at least not in any sort of enlightening detail) I'd much prefer to see a prequel that examined the society from the story.

I was very dissapointed that the movie didn't even touch on Mercerism, which is a central theme in the novel, and I think would make for an engaging angle in a screenplay. Deckard's desire for a live animal, the Owls at Tyrell, the electric sheep he bought and kept on the roof of his building, trying to convince his neighbour that it was real.... There's so much more that could have been explored that got cut from the first movie (not that I didn't like it). I think a prequel that dealt with the world surrounding the events in the original Blade Runner would be a much more entertaining story than having some hack gin up a 'sequel' for no other reason than putting bums in seats.

Re:What about a prequel? (2, Insightful)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638601)

Sequel or prequel won't matter. What you are looking for in a sci-fi movie doesn't exist. That's the big difference between true science fiction and what hollywood calls science fiction. You will never see true science fiction on the big screen because the average, movie going, lobotomized, audience member wouldn't understand what they were watching.

Robert Heinlein (1)

taozilla (212203) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638401)

I for one would love to see a big screen adaptation of Revolt in 2100 or Methuselah's Children. I think that Revolt would have special significance for all the Alex Jones followers!

I Don't Even Care Anymore (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638403)

Please No, Net a Blade Runner Sequel

Who cares at this point, really?

Disclaimers: I'm not an economist, I love Philip K. Dick & I could care less for Blade Runner the movie.

I see it as there being finite number of movies Hollywood has the money to make each year. I'd rather see a Blade Runner Sequel than the fourth or fifth Austin Powers movie (can you believe that Myers is on contract to make two more?) so why not? I mean, like the article says, the novel is out there [wikipedia.org] , it's not like if they transform that story into a movie or make their own script it's going to affect my perception of the original Blade Runner or Philip K. Dick novel. What the article fails to mention is there are actually four Blade Runner novels ( Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night [wikipedia.org] (1996), Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon [wikipedia.org] (2000)). Go ahead, turn them all into movies, you know the fans will reward you for it with piles of cash. It's better than Legally Blonde: Supreme Court Captain!

I think there have been other movies based on this novel--what of Spielberg's AI? Was that not a butchered version of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? also? I don't see this as quite cut and dried as CmdrTaco ("don't-ruin-perfect?"--I would hardly call any of this material perfect). I mean, I bitch and moan about movies like Snakes on a Plane & The Transporter 8 as I read great novels by great sci-fi writers like Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle [wikipedia.org] (which, although controversial, I opine would make a fine movie)--why not use these great stories that are already out there to allow good directors to create (potentially) great films?

I like to watch original movies from Warner Independent Pictures [wikipedia.org] and Fox Searchlight Pictures [wikipedia.org] but the public and I seem to disagree about where the money in Hollywood should be spent so why do I care that they rehash old crap and dilute brand names when that's how the market rewards them? Can you be critical of them making money? Is that not why they're in that business? Whore yourselves out for all I care, I'm not going to watch it unless there's a Rifftrax for it.

And let's not forget that there are good examples of this actually working out there like The Shining, The Shawshank Redemption, The Lord of the Rings, even Batman Begins & The Dark Knight grossly overshadow Batman Forever & Batman & Robin.

So I ask you, why do you care? You aren't forced to see the movie and if you do, it's going to give you something you love and cherish the most: something to bitch vindictively about.

Re:I Don't Even Care Anymore (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638659)

Actually, I would MUCH rather them make "Legally Blonde 5: In Her 30's, Tits Starting to Drag Now" than "Blade Runner 2." Why? Because a sequel can actually tarnish an original, that's why. It's easy to forget the genuine creepiness of a movie like "A Nightmare on Elm Street" when it's buried under a ton of awful sequels--turning the once-intimidating Freddy Krueger into little more than a glorified stand-up comedian. It's easy to forget that "Friday the 13th" was actually a pretty clever twist on "Halloween" (spoiler alert: it's a slasher movie where the legendary killer turns out not to have been the villain), because it gets lost in the morass of paint-by-numbers sequels.

In the case of a movie like "Legally Blonde," who gives a shit if it gets a crappy sequel? You can't tarnish a turd. But in the case of a classic, why sully it with a terrible sequel? Do you really want to see a "Highlander 2" turn your beloved immortals into mere aliens?

Re:I Don't Even Care Anymore (4, Informative)

PotatoFarmer (1250696) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638815)

I think there have been other movies based on this novel--what of Spielberg's AI? Was that not a butchered version of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? also?

AI was based on a Brian Aldiss story - Super-Toys Last All Summer Long

Already done. (4, Informative)

Stone Rhino (532581) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638411)

It was already done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_(film) [wikipedia.org]

It was written by David Peoples, who co-wrote the script for Blade Runner. By his own admission, he considers Soldier to be a "sidequel"/spiritual successor to Blade Runner.[1] It also obliquely references various elements of stories written by Philip K. Dick (who wrote the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, on which Blade Runner is based), or film adaptations thereof.

Re:Already done. (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638561)

If this new movie bears twice as much relation to Blade Runner as Soldier did (fine movie, btw) then it can hardly do any harm to the original (even in our memories.)

Just leave it be (1)

sircastor (1051070) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638413)

Blade Runner was a great movie. It's reputation and storyline ought to be left alone. If you want to write a story, it shouldn't be dependent on the world that it's set in. Fundamentally, if the story is sound it will function in whatever world you set it in. You don't need to put it in the world of Blade Runner.

"NET" a Blade Runner Sequel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26638415)

To those people who have tagged this "typoinheadline" you are wrong. Obviously, the Slashdot editors know that the name of this sequel is called "Net" and in that context, the headline makes perfect sense.
Or maybe, because "Please no" was right before... maybe they meant the Russian word for "no".... "Nyet"?

Net a Blade Runner Sequel (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638445)

Net a Blade Runner Sequel? huh? Is "Net" the name of the proposed movie? Odd, if so.

Re:Net a Blade Runner Sequel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26638465)

Cool. Where can I net this Blade Runner sequel?

Re:Net a Blade Runner Sequel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26638507)

Sandra Bullock is a replicant.

I think (1)

0vi_king (514106) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638475)

I think there is only one man who can handle the delicate balance of the needs of a sequel for the science fiction classic that is Blade Runner, he is the man with no name....uhh...

Paul W. S. Anderson..!

What about an EMS recombination? (5, Funny)

scourfish (573542) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638509)

We've already tried it - ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkalating agent and potent script treatment; it created a plothole so lethal the script was dead before it even left the table.

Don't panic! (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638533)

Calm down, everybody. There's no evidence that George Lucas will be involved.

Gaff (1)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638535)

I've always been interested in the Gaff character.

Like .. how does he make those wonderful origami? oy!

Also he has one of the best quotes from the movie, from any movie.

Re:Gaff (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638621)

He learned to fold origami on Caprica.

Where can I get the VO DVD? (1)

professorguy (1108737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638611)

I'm a huge P.K. Dick fan. I've read most everything he wrote (not all his work is great, but there are plenty of gems).

And I'm a huge Scott fan. When I saw Alien in its theatrical release, it changed my life--I was stunned by its greatness.

But I have to say that "Blade Runner" needs the Voice Over. The director's cut requires help--the heavy editing and VO were desperation moves, but correct ones.

I consider myself a cinema buff, not a member of the great unwashed with no sci-fi exposure for context. So save your flames. Regardless if you agree or not, I prefer the original version. So how do I get the version with VO on DVD?

Re:Where can I get the VO DVD? (1)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638965)

If you honestly want that, you can get the four disc collectors edition [amazon.com] off of Amazon for $23, which has every cut save for the workprint cut. Don't take this as a flamepost, but can I ask how you feel the narration helped? I was more than able to follow what was happening without the narration.

Re:Where can I get the VO DVD? (3, Interesting)

Urban Garlic (447282) | more than 5 years ago | (#26639021)

Not sure if you need to do this to get it, but if you get the "Blade Runner Five-disk Ultimate Collector's Edition" (yes, that's really what it's called, and yes, I have it), it includes the original US theatrical release, with the voice-over.

I was never sure about the voice-over, myself. I saw that version first, in theatres, back in the day, and I thought the voice-over was annoying, a bit too "Magnum P.I.", clubbing me with context. When I saw the "director's cut" later on, I liked it better, but of course, I had already seen the first one, so I knew the context. It's easy to imagine that if you see the "director's cut" first, it'd be pretty confusing.

I do think there needs to be less voice-over, particularly towards the end. By that time, the context is established, and the awesome visuals really do work better on their own.

IMHO, obviously.

Recommendation (2, Interesting)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638639)

one of the writers behind Eagle Eye

They say this like it's a positive recommendation or something. It's not.

or a prequel? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638663)

In fact, lets go the whole hog and make a Prequel.

We can have an early prototype replicant, maybe with big ears and a lisp; a hot chick - playing the original Sean Young; an evil corporate manager who subverts the original scientists and managers, betraying them to turn a humanitarian Tyrell company into a defence contractor-corporation with a production line consisting solely of pleasure units and soldiers; and it wouldn't be complete without a ton of modern, glossy CGI effects - no dark shadows and definitely no smoking!

It'd be a huge box-office hit.

What could possibly go wrong?!?!!?

Donning the old Zen-Master stuff (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638685)

To disperse some wisdom.

You see, grasshopper, story is like tea leaves. When you have good tea leaves, you will have good tea. You take tea leaves, you take hot water, and you have good tea. You have wonderful tea. You savour tea, and you like tea so much that you think, you want more tea. So you take the leaves out of the water and save them, then you bring hot water again and you pour it over the tea leaves. But alas, no good tea. It tastes stale and bland. The flavor all gone.

If you want another cup of tea, you have to find new tea leaves. Using the old one will only give you bland, tasteless and generally worthless tea.

Re:Donning the old Zen-Master stuff (2, Funny)

marquis111 (94760) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638971)

You could try replicating the tea, but, alas, that just results in something that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

=============
You should see what it looks like from over HERE.

Short stories... (1)

Kindaian (577374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638781)

The universe of Blade Runner is ripe for a short stories sequel... ;)

Which companies will die this time? (1)

jgeiger (1356045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638853)

Can we have the MPAA and the RIAA do some product placement please?

Bladerunner is untouchable! (1)

Vethraxx (1463493) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638881)

Having run motion picture film for 20 years, I have to say that the film Bladerunner is untouchable. There should never be a sequel made or a remake. The fact that there was even "The Final Cut" smacks of herecy. Not to mention the removal of Deckard's internal monologue in "The Director's Cut". The books written by K.W. Jeter are a shining example of why fan authors or fan directors should not be given the chance to taint the mythos created by the movie. If there is to be a sequel, let Rigley Scott kill his own creation. Just leave the Holly of Hollies alone.

A spinoff might work, a sequel will WRECK IT! (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638887)

I'm sorry hollywood, but the tanking economy and your new-low in cowardice do not excuse you going on an all out [jalopnik.com] rampage [timmaughanbooks.com] against scifi classics.

Sequel = BAD,

A proposal (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638889)

I have written screenplays for a trilogy of Blade Runner sequels based on the novels by K W Jetter. I made a few changes though, Deckard has a wise cracking CGI robot sheep sidekick to lighten the mood.

If you all PayPal me a total of $1million dollars I won't send them to Uwe Boll.

this is the only sequel I need: (1)

Trent Hawkins (1093109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638919)

The only necessary continuation to Blade Runner is BGC [madman.com.au]

Too much to handle (1)

chord.wav (599850) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638921)

I don't know you guys but I have just knew about this Bladerunner sequel and Leo "I'm the king of the world" DiCaprio doing Brave New World in the same post.
Too much for me to handle in a single day... I'm going offline until tomorrow.

without flaw (1)

noshellswill (598066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638957)

The phrase "without flaw" comes to mind when I think of BLADE RUNNER. But, people are not movies.

The Forever War, hooray... (2, Insightful)

estarriol (864512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26638977)

...that *could* actually make a great movie, but more importantly would get more people to read the book (which is my introductory Sci-Fi text I kept waving a fantasy types who dismiss Sci-Fi as "not their thing").

Scripts sent to... (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26639003)

At Comic-Con in 2007 Ridley said, "If you have any scripts, you know where to send them...

...the trash can.

A good thing (1)

Corson (746347) | more than 5 years ago | (#26639063)

Ridley Scott has rejected the idea in the past. If he is now willing to make a Blade Runner sequel IMO that is good news. It would be too much, I guess, to hope seeing Harrison Ford or Sean Young play in the sequel but I keep my fingers crossed. Blade Runner was and is my favorite movie.

More interested in Cameron's Avatar & Battle A (1)

majorme (515104) | more than 5 years ago | (#26639105)

I don't believe he is capable of making proper sci-fi movie. OK, Alien was great but then again Aliens and Alien: Resurrection are far better Alien movies.

Also, I never liked Blade Runner. It's dull.

James Cameron is the right man for this kind of job.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?