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!

Green Lantern Writer To Pen Blade Runner Sequel

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the I've-got-some-good-news-and-bad-news-for-you dept.

Movies 326

First time accepted submitter MovieEnthusiast writes "Alcon Entertainment, the production company that own the rights to Blade Runner, have announced that the Blade Runner sequel will be re-written by Michael Green (The Green Lantern) and hinted at other possible Blade Runner spin-offs. From the press release: 'Writer Michael Green is in negotiations to do a rewrite of Alcon Entertainment's "Blade Runner" sequel penned by Hampton Fancher ("Blade Runner," "The Minus Man," "The Mighty Quinn") and to be directed by Ridley Scott. Fancher's original story/screenplay is set some years after the first film concluded. Alcon co-founders and co-Chief Executive Officers Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove will produce with Bud Yorkin and Cynthia Sikes Yorkin, along with Ridley Scott. Frank Giustra and Tim Gamble, CEO's of Thunderbird Films, will serve as executive producers. Green recently completed rewrites on "Robopocalypse" and Warners Bros "Gods and Kings."'"

cancel ×

326 comments

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

Dark (4, Funny)

invid (163714) | about a year ago | (#43894995)

It will only be good if they make it darker and edgier.

Re:Dark (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43895075)

I suspect that if anything, it's going to be greener and more shiny.

Re:Dark (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895201)

well done!

Does BR even rate having a sequel? Explain please (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#43895725)

You know...I like many of Dick's stories, and some of the movies from them have been very interesting....I've never really seen the appeal of Blade Runner, certainly not enough for a sequel.

Granted, I saw it in the theater when it came out, and I was expecting more of a Star Wars thing, due to the time in history and at that time it was about all I'd ever seen Harrison Ford in)...so, I was confused and kinda disappointed, and possibly that has carried on in some small way into adulthood. While I've seen the movie as an adult, I've not seen it in a couple decades at least.

Perhaps I need to watch it again. I've heard there are director and other cuts that might make it a bit better movie...not sure which version is the definitive to watch.

But anyway, even with that...I just never saw it as that great of a movie, not that breakthrough...just seemed dull honestly.

What am I missing?

Re:Does BR even rate having a sequel? Explain plea (1)

bipbop (1144919) | about a year ago | (#43895769)

I don't really like Blade Runner either. The book is great, though.

Re:Does BR even rate having a sequel? Explain plea (5, Insightful)

slim (1652) | about a year ago | (#43895819)

You were unlucky enough to see it at the wrong time of your life, with the wrong expectations. It might not be fixable.

It'll be diminished now because that vision of the dark futuristic city, mixing Japan-inspired neon with rain and grime, has been done to death. Also it played to our fears and anticipations in the 80s.

I think it's a great film though, which reads differently depending on your perspective. At one stage, I watched it and saw it as a meditation on fate, the passing of time and the nature of memories. That's explicit in Rutger Hauer's monologues, but also in other aspects of the film.

Then I watched it again more recently, and read it in a completely different way.

That's evidence of depth.

Re:Dark (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895093)

It will only be good if they make it darker and edgier.

You want edgier? Then let's see them use Sean Young & Darrel Hannah again ... in the original costumes.

Re:Dark (0)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43895159)

Even better, take Sean Young off her meds too.

Re:Dark (5, Funny)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#43895511)

If they make this movie any darker we won't be able to see what is going on.

No (3, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43895017)

Let me guess, lots more action and 'plosions?

Don't (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895029)

Just leave them alone, please.

Re:Don't (3)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43895081)

I wish there were such a thing as forced retirement for directors. Directors, with a few notable exceptions, generally get about 10 years of true creativity. After that, they just become more and more of an embarrassment to themselves. I would be perfectly fine with establishing a high-security old directors home where the likes of George Lucas, Ridley Scott, Steven Speilberg, et. al. could be shuffled off to at bayonet point, never to rape their own legacy again.

Re:Don't (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43895137)

Wow, sounds like a good celebrity-cameo reboot for Logan's Run. Let's do this!

Re:Don't (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43895177)

Finally, a Carousel I could get behind.

Re:Don't (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#43895743)

Finally, a Carousel I could get behind.

IN the book there was no Carousel...geez, they really fucked up a great story with THAT movie adaptation. They completely blew off the coolness that was "the gun" in the book. Where was the homer?

Re:Don't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895565)

Ridley really jumped the shark with Prometheus

Had really high expectations, but wow, did it suck.

Re:Don't (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43895625)

I think Lucas is a gigantic douche wrapped in a turd sandwich, but he didn't rape anything. Nobody has come to your house and taken away your laserdisc featuring Han shooting first and nobody forced you to go watch the Gungan Menace.

Re:Don't (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43895685)

I think Lucas is a gigantic douche wrapped in a turd sandwich, but he didn't rape anything. Nobody has come to your house and taken away your laserdisc featuring Han shooting first and nobody forced you to go watch the Gungan Menace.

Oh he didn't rape me. He raped himself (or, more accurately, his younger self).

Ridley Scott is very dependent on his writers (1)

musterion (305824) | about a year ago | (#43895697)

And Prometheus shows this. Another question though what is the point of the sequel (and I don't me monesy)? What are they going to examine? Bladerunner examined on of Dick's major question: What does it mean to be human? Are they going after this again? Just what is the question. Yeah, maybe they should use Harrison Ford and Sean Young together again, why not show the effects of aging.

Noooooooooo! (5, Interesting)

tphb (181551) | about a year ago | (#43895031)

If there's a movie that doesn't need a sequel, it's Blade Runner.

Please Hollywood - find a new idea.

Will they answer the question... (1)

Dareth (47614) | about a year ago | (#43895341)

Will they answer the question?

Is/Was Harrison Ford's character in the movie a replicant?

Re:Will they answer the question... (3, Insightful)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year ago | (#43895437)

I have a question – why would answering that question make a good movie?

Personally, I like the ambiguity. It still makes for an interesting conversation after all of these years – Unlike Han’s “Who shot first” question? My guess is that it would detract from the original – not add. Personally, I think that the should leave it like the original Matrix movie – No reason to do another one, even if the fans demand a sequel.

Re:Will they answer the question... (1)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | about a year ago | (#43895871)

Will they answer the question?

Is/Was Harrison Ford's character in the movie a replicant?

I can't keep the different versions of Blade Runner straight in my mind anymore, but at least some of them make it pretty unambiguous that he is (it contains the unicorn dream sequence). So the question is answered.

Re:Noooooooooo! (4, Informative)

cjjjer (530715) | about a year ago | (#43895453)

That is the problem they have no new original ideas.

Re:Noooooooooo! (5, Interesting)

realsilly (186931) | about a year ago | (#43895507)

What you said.

Blade Runner is by far one of the best movies ever, in part due to the never answered question. It does not need a sequel. That movie should stand on it's own and should not be messed or tampered with in any way.

Please Hollywood, Please, for the love of all good creations, don't do a sequel or a redo, ever. Let it remain the masterpiece that it is.

Re:Noooooooooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895813)

If there's a movie that doesn't need a sequel, it's Blade Runner.

Please Hollywood - find a new idea.

Or, if they can't find a new idea, at least pick yet another Philip K. Dick novel to make a movie of.

Re:Noooooooooo! (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year ago | (#43895875)

It could be worse.

Uwe Boll could decided to move out of decimating game franchises.

BLEH (5, Informative)

Torp (199297) | about a year ago | (#43895043)

The only person that could write a sequel died in 1982. This will automatically be a steaming pile of shit.

Re:BLEH (5, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year ago | (#43895077)

Dude, quit being so Dickish.

Re:BLEH (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about a year ago | (#43895251)

Wouldn't that be a Dickian?

Re:BLEH (5, Insightful)

invid (163714) | about a year ago | (#43895207)

As much as I love PK Dick's writing, Blade Runner has very little to do with his book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The only movie that I know of that stayed close to one of his books is A Scanner Darkly. The greatness of Blade Runner was a happy convergence of talent from multiple people. In all likelihood, the sequel will be an abomination.

Re:BLEH (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43895599)

As much as I love PK Dick's writing, Blade Runner has very little to do with his book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.

Wait, what? It's about the same thing, most of the same characters, the central point of both stories is the same. How is that "very little to do with"?

Re:BLEH (3, Insightful)

invid (163714) | about a year ago | (#43895879)

I'm just trying to image what the movie would have been like if they had included Deckard's pet goat.

Re:BLEH (3, Insightful)

tippe (1136385) | about a year ago | (#43895767)

As chance would have it, I'm actually right in the middle of reading this book!

While the general premise of the book is the same as the movie (androids/replicants being hunted by a bounty hunter/blade runner), there are already enough differences between the two (so far) that I can definitely see them diverging from each other to the point where they have "very little to do with" each other... or perhaps not.

It's been many years since I've seen Blade Runner, but the principal theme (or moral, or whatever) that I recall from the movie is the confusion/tension between human (or "life") and machine and the underlying themes of what it actually means to be "alive" vs being a mechanical automaton. In the movie, Deckard, a human (or so I recall. As I understand it, there exists a theory that he was actually a replicant...) spends all of his energy chasing down and retiring what we are led to believe are nothing more than machines, but at the end we (and him) discover that these so-called lifeless androids have lived more than he ever has. You are left wondering what the real difference is between being "alive" as a human or being "alive" as an android, especially since the androids, owing to their shorter lifespan, seemed to appreciate life more, and lived it more fully than their human counterparts (that go though life living like machines) do.

While the book (so far) has a lot of difference between it and the movie, and hasn't indicated that androids have an artificially shorter lifespan (like in the movie), it has already introduced some themes that set up confusion/tension between things that are "alive" vs ones that are artificial and mechanical. Therefore, like I said earlier, I can definitely see it finishing in the same way as the movie: with us questioning if there is a real difference, and wondering if the androids were actually more "human" and more "alive" than the humans themselves. If that's true, then I wouldn't really say that one had very little to do with the other.

One thing's for sure though; it's an interesting book, and regardless of how things turn out, I think that so far it's definitely worth reading.

Re:BLEH (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43895367)

This will automatically be a steaming pile of shit.

Only if your criteria for "steaming pile of shit" boils down to "isn't written by the original author." Which seems like a stupid criteria.

Russel Targ and Hal Puthoff say "hi". (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#43895607)

Wait, they found him [fictioncircus.com] again!

Re:BLEH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895631)

Actually there are already 3 sequels written (of the original book) and even though not from P.K.D., they are IMHO quite good :-)

wtf? (4, Funny)

bloodhawk (813939) | about a year ago | (#43895047)

You mean someone didn't ban him for life from being involved with writing anything EVER again after the green lantern?

Re:wtf? (3, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year ago | (#43895143)

The movie was "alright" Really, as far as origin stories go... the basic plot wasn't too bad and it had all of the main elements an origin story needs. And let's face it, origin stories stink on camera... almost as a rule.

Though only head-scratcher is they started out-the-gate with Parallax. He's more of an end-boss type of villain instead of a tutorial-mission-boss.

I think it was more of a package-fail: a combination of directing / writing / etc.

I think the movie was "alright" but not great. And for something like Blade Runner... I'd want someone that had proven himself as awesome. This guy hasn't yet, though his work on "Kings" was quite superb.

A sequel after all this time? (5, Funny)

Zaatxe (939368) | about a year ago | (#43895053)

Why not a reboot?

Re:A sequel after all this time? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895085)

why touch it at all, It is a beautiful piece of cinematic history that doesn't need to be tarnished by the Hollywood of today. Just leave it the fuck alone.

Re:A sequel after all this time? (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year ago | (#43895157)

why touch it at all, It is a beautiful piece of cinematic history that doesn't need to be tarnished by the Hollywood of today. Just leave it the fuck alone.

Agreed.

Leave it alone. I'm OK with the various re-releases or some SFX-cleanups.

But other than that, just leave the classics alone.

Re:A sequel after all this time? (3, Insightful)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#43895281)

Which one, The theatrical release, the directors cut, the sneak preview release, or any of the others. This movie has never been left the fuck alone.

Re:A sequel after all this time? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895383)

I recommend they stick to only the Directors Cut and include a bandolier of joints with every copy

Re:A sequel after all this time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895755)

Can't we consider it FUBAR and leave it the fuck along from now on?

Pick the version you like most. Buy the DVD if you want (or bluray, whatever), watch it as often as you like, and go on your merry lil' way.

One of the best movie experiences I had was when a national movie-theater chain was doing a celebration of WB's 75th anniversay (in 1998) and they started showing classic movies on a rotating schedule. They showed Blade Runner, Casablanca,...and many other classics of cinema. I went to see BR, everyone in the theater was there to see BR, and I mean it wasn't a casual "let's go to the movies" night, I got the feeling we were all there for the movie; no one talked during the movie, there were no phones going off, even the one guy "noisily" opening a bag of chips could be heard whispering apologies. I was in my early 20s back then and to see BR in a theater!

Re:A sequel after all this time? (4, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43895227)

Why not a reboot?

No. That's not actually the damn answer to everything. Typical Windows User

This does not inspire confidence in me (5, Interesting)

wwphx (225607) | about a year ago | (#43895073)

Green Lantern was not exactly a great movie, Blade Runner was. Ignoring how faithful the original was to the source material, the sequel has to be very faithful to the original movie to ensure good story continuity. Someone that would impress me would be Peter Jackson or Del Toro. For that matter, Kevin Smith would impress me if he were attached to the project. Or William Goldman, a master at re-writes.

Though it's entirely possible that I'm turning in to a curmudgeon and should stick to my video collection and watch 20+ year old movies only, I thought Star Trek Into Darkness was kinda sucky and hold little hope in my heart for JJ's Star Wars movies.

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year ago | (#43895097)

I'd like to see Paul Thomas Anderson do it.

He's a very cerebral director, which would fit perfectly.

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895167)

Green Lantern was not exactly a great movie...

Not true.

Green Lantern was an incredibly BAD movie. Terrible. Horrible.

Why would they let this guy even NEAR the Blade Runner franchise? Terrible, terrible, terrible idea.

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year ago | (#43895533)

I have found a very low correlation between how good a movie is and how good the writer’s prior screenwriting work was. There is a lot that goes on between the writing of the words and what we see on the screen. Studio heads, directors, writers, film editors all modify what was on the written page.

I trust Ridley Scott. If he picked this guy out then that is good enough for me. Maybe Mr. Green’s magnum opus is this work and Scott has seen an early draft. (But I will withhold finial judgment until I see the movie on the big screen.)

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (1)

slim (1652) | about a year ago | (#43895745)

I trust Ridley Scott.

Even after Prometheus?

I mean, it wasn't awful. But it wasn't good either.

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (5, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year ago | (#43895169)

Do you really see a slow paced sci-fi noir action/psychological/ethical thriller playing well today? No, hell, it didn't even play well when Blade Runner was made, they barely recouped their cost. No studio in their right minds would green light a true sequel to Blade Runner because it is at best a gamble and more realistically a financial wash. So what are we gonna end up with? I'm guessing a Micheal Bay-ified version, complete with explosions, spaceships, maybe even an all out human on replicant war, with the fate of humanity hanging in the balance.

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (2)

jasenj1 (575309) | about a year ago | (#43895393)

Exactly. I hope history will look back at this time period and mock us for the over-use of CGI to make over the top explosions, giant robots/aliens/monsters, etc. CGI can be used very effectively to add just that little bit extra without screaming in your face.

But then you have to examine the demographic the movie targets. Teenagers love big, over the top explosions, etc. Sci-fi noir, not so much. A "great" movie may not make as much money as a "terrible" FX laden turd. Hollywood would rather make the latter.

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (2)

rioki (1328185) | about a year ago | (#43895451)

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe... [laughs] Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those... moments... will be lost in time, like [coughs] tears... in... rain. Time... to die...*

THAT could be made into an action movie. It would not tarnish the original movie and match quite well into a standard blockbuster format. This movie can use the blade runner name and still stand on it's own. Unfortunately, Hollywood being Hollywood... not much hope there.

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year ago | (#43895709)

Yes, but what would be the point? The soldiers are essentially newborns, at most a few years old, being forced to fight a war that they don't care about and will never live to see the end of even if they win every battle without a casualty. There's no human drama possible because up until the events immediately before Blade Runner the replicants were basically living, thinking machines. Besides, taking the replicants and turning them into the mindless war machines that a big budget sci-fi action movie would require is exactly what Blade Runner isn't about.

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (1)

rioki (1328185) | about a year ago | (#43895881)

To a certain extent it is about machines (replicants) becoming human. At least that is the underlying dilemma packaged into a rather classic fime noir. Why not take the approach from the other angle. The same core question embedded into a rather action oriented movie. It's just an idea, ya know...

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (1)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | about a year ago | (#43895737)

I would see that movie, if it weren't billed as a sequel to Blade Runner, but just as its own thing.

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895811)

Oh boy. Is this all our war going to consist of both sides lining up across from each other running at each other screaming?

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (1)

Menestrel (2009888) | about a year ago | (#43895855)

No studio in their right minds would green light [...]

Eh. I see what you did there. :]

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895253)

Though it's entirely possible that I'm turning in to a curmudgeon and should stick to my video collection and watch 20+ year old movies only

In general yes. I do however recommend the new Dredd-movie over the old one. (Although that one isn't technically 20+ yet.)
The new LotR movies are also preferable over the old animated one.

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (1)

slim (1652) | about a year ago | (#43895643)

Agreed, the new Dredd movie was great.

Re:This does not inspire confidence in me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895735)

The new Dredd movie is not notable in any way. The old one was at least good campy fun when it came out.

Grump cat says: No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895083)

I see no upsides to this. Mr. Scotts last alien movie was a dude. Last green latern movie was a dude. 2 wrongs make a right?

Mott the Hoople, FTW (1)

drainbramage (588291) | about a year ago | (#43895267)

Dude, it's not dude it's dud.
Maybe Weird Al could sing 'All the young duds'.

Re:Mott the Hoople, FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895299)

go easy hes just a cat

Re:Grump cat says: No (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about a year ago | (#43895273)

A "dud"?

A great disturbance... (1, Funny)

verbatim (18390) | about a year ago | (#43895087)

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Not thrilled (2)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year ago | (#43895099)

Firstly, Blade Runner doesn't need a sequel. Or a prequel. Or a re-imagining. It was solid by itself. Let it be.

Secondly, as much of a fan as I am of the Green Lantern comics... and as someone who thought the move was "alright" I would rather they went with someone else for the screenplay.

He also wrote the series "Kings" which was fantastic, but the rest of his WRITING resume is "meh"

So if you're going to do something like this... get someone GREAT. Get someone AWESOME. Don't get someone without a lot of hits on his writing resume.

Re:Not thrilled (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895185)

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? already has a sequel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Human [wikipedia.org] by K.W. Jeter.

Re:Not thrilled (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year ago | (#43895619)

I understand there is source material for sequels.

But there are books and there are movies. The books tend to be superior to the movies and tend not to lose their quality from volume-to-volume in a series.

Movies... are kind of fragile. To make a good movie adaptation takes a lot of pieces coming together JUST right (screen play, director, actor, funding, vision, producer, setting, etc.)... AND a lot of luck. Trying to replicate that luck tends to fail. Out of all of the sequels made (including direct-to-video) how many great ones are there?

Meanwhile some movies are so iconic, that they should be left alone. I mean, did the studios go out and make a big adaptation of "Scarlett" after it became obvious that "Gone with the Wind" was a big-time classic? No.

Interchangeable Heroes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895107)

In this day and age of interchangeable movie heroes[*] I'm not expecting much, but endless GCI and run-of-the-mill action sequences that could be in any other movie.

* yesterday I saw trailer #4 of Superman's new movie, and I just can't help but think all these modern superhero movies are basically the same generic thing with the main hero switched. The Superman I knew (Reeves) was a pretty unique guy. Lex Luthor (Hackman) was an even more unique villain.

Re:Interchangeable Heroes (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43895213)

Generic action movie script*

*with specific skin to be slapped on later

Hollywood is out of ideas (2)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#43895113)

How many movies these days aren't a sequel to a reboot to a prequel of something that's been made before? Hollywood can't pass up the quick fix of a "built in audience". Too bad that all too often they don't show up.

Re:Hollywood is out of ideas (3, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | about a year ago | (#43895263)

Except by making a gratuitous sequel (or reboot) of a great movie, they usually manage to offend the fans of the original, plus since they seldom "get" what the appeal of the original is, they usually don't make a better sequel - thus turning off the younger fans that might have adopted the new version.

And of course, since the redo is big budget, they have to run it through the hands of a few writers to be sure its got the seal of approval that the backers want, and in the process anything good or quirky is ironed out and the script conforms to the cliches that worked in the past based on market research and analysis. Usually this means more Splosions.

Rosebud (5, Funny)

Ralph Barbagallo (2881145) | about a year ago | (#43895135)

When will they get M Night Shyamalan to make Citizen Kane 2?

Re:Rosebud (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43895223)

Rosebud was actually Bigfoot all along!

Re:Rosebud (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895317)

What a twist!

Re:Rosebud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895349)

Figuring out what Rosebud really is, is an excellent opportunity for product placement.

Re:Rosebud (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43895477)

Stop saying that, someone might hear you .. in his version, we'd find out that Kane was actually Rosebud all along.

I have determined that having Shyamalan's name on a piece of work means it's a movie I need to avoid.

Well, to me, (1, Insightful)

houbou (1097327) | about a year ago | (#43895147)

the choosing of this writer does not inspire me with great confidence.

Green Lantern was a great movie, from a technical viewpoint.

In that respect, I would say that both Superman Returns and Green Lantern are movies whch the special effects were done right and as such, can be considered technical successes.

In Green Lantern, I didn't mind the way they ported the ring / power battery technology into the movie, the CGI were decent, considering how one could envision a ring construct made of green light, but, just like Superman Returns, Green Lantern's writing and the story line had as many holes as you would find in a pasta strainer.

Re:Well, to me, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895569)

The CGI of Green Lantern was done about as well as your grammar in that post.

Vangelis (2)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about a year ago | (#43895149)

Part of the uniqueness of Blade Runner was the soundtrack. There are just so many ways this sequel can go wrong. But I suppose I don't have to watch it if they fail.

Re:Vangelis (1)

Rizimar (1986164) | about a year ago | (#43895411)

If Vangelis came back for the soundtrack on this one, it would be incredible. But if they got Com Truise [youtube.com] to do the score, I definitely wouldn't mind.

Re:Vangelis (1)

slim (1652) | about a year ago | (#43895663)

Disasterpeace [disasterpeace.com] could do it justice, I feel.

Re:Vangelis (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43895611)

Part of the uniqueness of Blade Runner was the soundtrack. There are just so many ways this sequel can go wrong. But I suppose I don't have to watch it if they fail.

I'm gonna say Maroder. But they'll probably give it to Daft Punk.

Depends. What electric sheep wearing? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43895173)

Confuseya Say: He who run blade but do not "enhance", get no romance, only split pants.

it will be awesome (3, Funny)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year ago | (#43895183)

With the director of "GI Jane" and "Prometheus" how could it fail?

Fuck. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#43895191)

That is all.

Don't worry too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895199)

There's already a book sequel. They can't mess it up THAT much.

Oh interesting (1, Flamebait)

AbRASiON (589899) | about a year ago | (#43895215)

Do you think it'll be as boring and over rated as the orignal? Only time will tell.

Replicant (1)

Rizimar (1986164) | about a year ago | (#43895235)

Maybe the sequel will smash us over the head with whether or not Deckard truly is a replicant to try to put an end to the perpetual debating among the fans.

Re:Replicant (1)

slim (1652) | about a year ago | (#43895891)

I love that it's ambiguous, but I can't abide the fans debating.

Look, there's no right answer. The actors/writers/directors don't have a secret canonical version of what wasn't shown on screen. Both possibilities exist.

See also the excellent recent film 'Kill List', in which lots of background is deliberately left undefined. The writer/director has said quite clearly that all interpretations are equally valid.

Please post news about Radio Free Albemuth (1)

Eirenarch (1099517) | about a year ago | (#43895245)

In other news the independent movie Radio Free Albemuth is having a kickstarter campaign to fund theatrical release. Why don't we get news about this?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/elizabethkarr/radio-free-albemuth-theatrical-release/ [kickstarter.com]

Re:Please post news about Radio Free Albemuth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895525)

because there's a fine line between pimping and promoting...

wait actually lately thats exactly up slashdots alley, why isn't that on the front page.

No big deal. (1)

waltew (764415) | about a year ago | (#43895361)

It's not like he's writing the script. It's already been penned by Mr Fancher. But I wonder why they don't bring in Mr Peoples, like last time. Hopefully post Prometheus Scott checks for bad writing.

I hate to be the one to say this... (3, Interesting)

tekrat (242117) | about a year ago | (#43895427)

The ONLY, and I mean ONLY person to have ever done a sequel to a Ridley Scott film "right" was James Cameron. I know he's not well liked in Slashdot circles, but even Ridley can't do his own films justice, as we've seen with Prometheus.

In fact, when I first heard they were doing an Alien sequel when I was in college, I was aghast, as I am now over this Blade Runner sequel... But "aliens" was a fine shoot-em-up adventure film, and is still watchable even today. "Game over man" and "nuke 'em from orbit" are quotes used to this day.

There's simply NO WAY to make a Blade Runner sequel and do it right -- you might as well be talking about sequels to Casablanca and Citizen Kane. You don't mess with a classic. That terrible Planet of the Apes reboot with Marky Mark should have showed everyone that you just don't mess with a classic.

The Only Possible Response (1)

twmcneil (942300) | about a year ago | (#43895587)

My mother... I'll tell you about my mother.

My favorite part of the original is how they portrayed the urban landscape. Dark and rainy, yet dirty. Like the rain itself could not wash away the effects of the lack of morality of the over populated city. If the sequel fucks this part up, I will be sorely disappointed.

Who am I kidding? I should just start being disappointed now and get it over with.

Not Pleased (1)

koan (80826) | about a year ago | (#43895645)

Not Pleased with the selection of writers...

How long until Bladerunner CSI ?

Michael Green to write a sequel TKAM2 (5, Funny)

Picass0 (147474) | about a year ago | (#43895733)

To Kill a Mockingbird 2

"If Atticus Finch can't get justice in the court room...

(Queue sound effects: "Screeech.....KABOOM...."ATTICUS!!!!") ...he'll get it on the street!"

Standard Hollywood procedure? (1)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#43895789)

Is it possible to sell only the rights to a specific book or story, or does Hollywood demand that authors surrender the rights so that sequels and derivative works are legal without a new agreement?

Perhaps it could be done well, but the idea of "Blade Runner 2" makes me cringe.

I just learned recently that Thomas Harris (author of the Hannibal Lecter books) sold the rights to the characters as well as the books. Hollywood was threatening to use the rights to produce a film NOT based on a book, so they coerced Harris into writing "Hannibal Rising" which is why it sucked.

Does Hollywood always demand such exclusive rights?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>