Blade Runner 2 on the way care of Ridley Scott 2 2

[woodencomicframe-migration]

I just watched Blade Runner the other day, very odd movie but interesting. Would be cool to see what they can do with todays technology for a sequal.

[violentluke]

I may need too check the original out, still haven't seen it

[Aweandlorder]

I had a feeling when I opened this thread there would be discussion about which cut of the movie is the best overall.

 

In my opinion, Blade Runner is an amazing movie that was largely overshadowed at the time it was released, and I honestly sort of like that. Blade Runner is the type of movie that you can show someone who never saw it 32 years ago and watch them get floored by it. Unlike some other movies from the same period, Blade Runner still holds up. Its a great, tragic story. It was ahead of its time by years.

 

Rutger Hauer's death monologue at the end is brilliant. The movie is worth watching just to see that one single scene!

Totally agree that scene is very powerful!

 

Rutger is such a powerhouse in that movie

"If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes"

 

That line resonated in me from day one

[aggr1103]

If anyone reading this has never seen Blade Runner, do yourself a favor and run down to your local Big Lots. I see copies of the director's cut on their DVD rack in pretty much every location I've stopped in. I picked up my copy while they were running a sale. Think I got it for $3.

[Number 6]

To the original topic point:

 

I must admit, when I saw the thread title I instantly thought "oh cool!" but with a moments pause, I really can't see how a sequel would be a good idea.

 

The movie stands on it's own. It presents a theme and questions for the audience to ponder on their own. To have a sequel try and answer those questions for the audience would undermine the original (2010 is an apt comparison); for a sequel to raise more of the same questions would be redundant.

 

For those who weren't there when this was released, it's hard to describe what a radical departure Blade Runner's depiction of the future was. I don't think it sat well with the general audience at the time. But it was ahead of it's time because the vast majority of science fiction movies have tried to copy Blade Runner's look to one degree or another. Even the the '89 Batman movie's Gotham was channeling Blade Runner.

 

So if a sequel were made now - after all those imitators - I don't think it would stand out as cutting edge like the original. The general audience reaction would be "ho-hum, been there, done that".

[Speedy-D]

Agreed. There are two ways a sequel could go:

 

1. Hey, let's answer all those open questions!

 

This is not always the case by any means, but when posed and handled well, open questions that never get answered just make a movie better. It is certainly the case with Blade Runner. If you answer the questions, even in a second movie 30+ years on, you both cheapen the original a bit for everyone and kill much of the joy for future first-time viewers who are going to watch both movies together.

 

2. Remember that groovy adventure with Deckard and the replicants? That was fun, let's do another caper!!

 

The action in Blade Runner, the specifics of the plot...they were most certainly cool and can be enjoyed on their own, but they're secondary to the ground-breaking mood/philosophy/humanity. These aspects of the film do not need a follow-up and most likely cannot support a follow-up.

[ComicConnoisseur]

One plus this sequel has is Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford will be doing it. I rather have that happen, then in 20 years have someone else rebooting it.

Blade Runner came out 32 years ago, and that is a staggering long time to wait for a sequel. Better to do it now, then in another 20 years when Ford and Scott won`t be making movies. Just my

 

Edited September 1, 2014 by ComicConnoisseur

[Number 6]

One plus this sequel has is Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford will be doing it. I rather have that happen, then in 20 years have someone else rebooting it.

 

Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford returned for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I wasn't real impressed with the result. While a director and star returning does provide a nice bit of continuity, it doesn't guarantee quality.

 

Blade Runner came out 32 years ago, and that is a staggering long time to wait for a sequel. Better to do it now, then in another 20 years when Ford and Scott won`t be making movies. Just my

 

That's the thing: I don't know of anybody who was actually waiting on pins and needles for a sequel to Blade Runner. I think everyone assumed it was one and done and was pretty happy with that.

[ComicConnoisseur]

One plus this sequel has is Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford will be doing it. I rather have that happen, then in 20 years have someone else rebooting it.

 

Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford returned for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I wasn't real impressed with the result. While a director and star returning does provide a nice bit of continuity, it doesn't guarantee quality.

 

Blade Runner came out 32 years ago, and that is a staggering long time to wait for a sequel. Better to do it now, then in another 20 years when Ford and Scott won`t be making movies. Just my

 

That's the thing: I don't know of anybody who was actually waiting on pins and needles for a sequel to Blade Runner. I think everyone assumed it was one and done and was pretty happy with that.

My point is Blade Runner is too much of a moneymaker to not do a sequel. They are going to do a sequel no matter what, so it might as well be Scott and Ford who will be the caretakers of the remake.

I also understand what your getting at that Blade Runner should be a one and done because my favorite movie is Casablanca and I wouldn`t want a sequel to it.

I just don`t see Hollywood leaving all the money on the table that a Blade Runner sequel would make.

 

Edited September 1, 2014 by ComicConnoisseur

[Number 6]

One plus this sequel has is Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford will be doing it. I rather have that happen, then in 20 years have someone else rebooting it.

 

Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford returned for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I wasn't real impressed with the result. While a director and star returning does provide a nice bit of continuity, it doesn't guarantee quality.

 

Blade Runner came out 32 years ago, and that is a staggering long time to wait for a sequel. Better to do it now, then in another 20 years when Ford and Scott won`t be making movies. Just my

 

That's the thing: I don't know of anybody who was actually waiting on pins and needles for a sequel to Blade Runner. I think everyone assumed it was one and done and was pretty happy with that.

My point is Blade Runner is too much of a moneymaker to not do a sequel.

......

I just don`t see Hollywood leaving all the money on the table that a Blade Runner sequel would make.

 

In what way is Blade Runner a "moneymaker"? From what I remember, the original movie was a box office disappointment. It's a cult movie.

 

They have managed to squeeze more money out of it by releasing numerous cuts of the movie, but I can't imagine that's generated enough money to justify the budget of a new movie.

 

And I'm still not getting where the demand is that would make a sequel a "moneymaker". As it's been pointed out here, fans of the original are leery of a sequel, the younger generation think the original is boring and have no interest.

[Mr 9.8]

If any movie deserves a sequel it's DREDD.

At least that movie was begging for a sequel, BR never has.

 

[Aweandlorder]

If anyone reading this has never seen Blade Runner, do yourself a favor and run down to your local Big Lots. I see copies of the director's cut on their DVD rack in pretty much every location I've stopped in. I picked up my copy while they were running a sale. Think I got it for $3.

 

>> and then come home and pick This

 

Although its a bit more than 3 bucks hehe

[ComicConnoisseur]

If anyone reading this has never seen Blade Runner, do yourself a favor and run down to your local Big Lots. I see copies of the director's cut on their DVD rack in pretty much every location I've stopped in. I picked up my copy while they were running a sale. Think I got it for $3.

 

>> and then come home and pick This

 

Although its a bit more than 3 bucks hehe

WOW! I just added it to my watch list.

Does anybody remember what version Marvel adapted?

Edited September 1, 2014 by ComicConnoisseur

[ComicConnoisseur]

One plus this sequel has is Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford will be doing it. I rather have that happen, then in 20 years have someone else rebooting it.

 

Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford returned for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I wasn't real impressed with the result. While a director and star returning does provide a nice bit of continuity, it doesn't guarantee quality.

 

Blade Runner came out 32 years ago, and that is a staggering long time to wait for a sequel. Better to do it now, then in another 20 years when Ford and Scott won`t be making movies. Just my

 

That's the thing: I don't know of anybody who was actually waiting on pins and needles for a sequel to Blade Runner. I think everyone assumed it was one and done and was pretty happy with that.

My point is Blade Runner is too much of a moneymaker to not do a sequel.

......

I just don`t see Hollywood leaving all the money on the table that a Blade Runner sequel would make.

 

In what way is Blade Runner a "moneymaker"? From what I remember, the original movie was a box office disappointment. It's a cult movie.

 

They have managed to squeeze more money out of it by releasing numerous cuts of the movie, but I can't imagine that's generated enough money to justify the budget of a new movie.

 

And I'm still not getting where the demand is that would make a sequel a "moneymaker". As it's been pointed out here, fans of the original are leery of a sequel, the younger generation think the original is boring and have no interest.

From what I gather they wouldn`t have made so many different versions on Blu-Ray and DVDS if they didn`t sell.

Here is a thought. I bet the Blade Runner sequel does better at the box office then the original.

Why?

The Blade Runner audience has gotten much bigger since 1982, hence why I think Blade Runner is a moneymaker.

 

[Aweandlorder]

If anyone reading this has never seen Blade Runner, do yourself a favor and run down to your local Big Lots. I see copies of the director's cut on their DVD rack in pretty much every location I've stopped in. I picked up my copy while they were running a sale. Think I got it for $3.

 

>> and then come home and pick This

 

Although its a bit more than 3 bucks hehe

WOW! I just added it to my watch list.

Does anybody remember what version Marvel adapted?

 

I believe the original, Its funny now that you mention it, Blade Runner is the only movie that I know that had so many "reprints"

[Bosco685]

So if a sequel were made now - after all those imitators - I don't think it would stand out as cutting edge like the original. The general audience reaction would be "ho-hum, been there, done that".

 

We'll have to see if this even gets off the ground. Even with Ridley Scott's backing.

 

There are slight changes which lead to a different path concerning Deckard's origin and future. And later on, Philip K. 's friend K. W. Jeter published follow-up stories (Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human; Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night; Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon) based on one of those paths. Deckard being human in the end. At least, you think so.

 

But there is additional material that could be references for a solid sequel. The three-book follow-up series was actually not that bad. I read the first two, and found them interesting. Especially with the first book, it turns out to include a surprise twist in the story I was not expecting. It would change some of your understanding of the original movie.

 

There is also a game from Westwood Studios that I feel was excellent (I think I still have it stored away somewhere) which took a different approach.

 

Blade Runner (1997)

 

There is another blade runner also hunting down replicants at the same time as Deckard. Depending on the decisions you make, you go down one of the paths hinted at by the different versions of the movie.

 

-------------------------

There are thirteen endings, influenced by the player's actions throughout the game. These endings are variations on three major themes; the player can believe McCoy is human, and hunt down the replicants; be persuaded that he's a replicant himself, and side with them against the other Blade Runners; or stay neutral, and flee the city, either alone or with some of the other characters.

-------------------------

 

Even the Westwood game had an interesting twist to the story, depending on which of the paths you followed. I believe there was one where the Blade Runner was a replicant and didn't know it, and the characters he was retiring were humans that could have threatened the existance of fellow replicants.

 

I'd take this over the recent news how they want to remake 'Escape from New York' with Charlie Hunnam in the lead role. There is no reason to remake that fantastic little John Carpenter gem. It was great as-is.

[Mr Sneeze]

Agreed. There are two ways a sequel could go:

 

1. Hey, let's answer all those open questions!

 

This is not always the case by any means, but when posed and handled well, open questions that never get answered just make a movie better. It is certainly the case with Blade Runner. If you answer the questions, even in a second movie 30+ years on, you both cheapen the original a bit for everyone and kill much of the joy for future first-time viewers who are going to watch both movies together.

 

2. Remember that groovy adventure with Deckard and the replicants? That was fun, let's do another caper!!

 

The action in Blade Runner, the specifics of the plot...they were most certainly cool and can be enjoyed on their own, but they're secondary to the ground-breaking mood/philosophy/humanity. These aspects of the film do not need a follow-up and most likely cannot support a follow-up.

 

I definitely agree with that. Part of the allure and intrigue is the open ended nature of the film. To try and answer those questions would be folly.

 

Another story in the same universe so to speak that touches on the same themes could be brilliant if given the same open endedness (not try to answer the question/s but rather pose them in new ways or new questions altogether.)

 

[Number 6]

One plus this sequel has is Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford will be doing it. I rather have that happen, then in 20 years have someone else rebooting it.

 

Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford returned for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I wasn't real impressed with the result. While a director and star returning does provide a nice bit of continuity, it doesn't guarantee quality.

 

Blade Runner came out 32 years ago, and that is a staggering long time to wait for a sequel. Better to do it now, then in another 20 years when Ford and Scott won`t be making movies. Just my

 

That's the thing: I don't know of anybody who was actually waiting on pins and needles for a sequel to Blade Runner. I think everyone assumed it was one and done and was pretty happy with that.

My point is Blade Runner is too much of a moneymaker to not do a sequel.

......

I just don`t see Hollywood leaving all the money on the table that a Blade Runner sequel would make.

 

In what way is Blade Runner a "moneymaker"? From what I remember, the original movie was a box office disappointment. It's a cult movie.

 

They have managed to squeeze more money out of it by releasing numerous cuts of the movie, but I can't imagine that's generated enough money to justify the budget of a new movie.

 

And I'm still not getting where the demand is that would make a sequel a "moneymaker". As it's been pointed out here, fans of the original are leery of a sequel, the younger generation think the original is boring and have no interest.

From what I gather they wouldn`t have made so many different versions on Blu-Ray and DVDS if they didn`t sell.

 

It's a cult movie, it has a small but rabid following. I suspect Blade Runner fans are like Star Trek and Star Wars fans: they'll repeatedly buy the same thing over and over just because it has a new bell or whistle. They know they're being played by the studio and they hate the studio for it but they can't help themselves.

 

 

And there's a world of difference between generating revenue from DVD sales and making a successful blockbuster movie.

 

 

Here is a thought. I bet the Blade Runner sequel does better at the box office then the original.

 

Since the original was a box-office dud, that's not much of a prediction. The new Tron movie grossed more than the original but I don't think it's considered a success either. Critics panned it, fans of the original were disappointed and I don't think the new audience was converted to die-hard Tron fans either.

Why?

The Blade Runner audience has gotten much bigger since 1982, hence why I think Blade Runner is a moneymaker.

 

I disagree that there's a groundswell of new Blade Runner fans. The consensus from the comments here is that the younger generation think it's a boring fringe movie from the 80's that they can't even sit through.

 

But I guess that's a difference of opinion, only time will bear out which is true.

[Comicopolis]

Just do another film about replicants.

[Bosco685]

Here is a thought. I bet the Blade Runner sequel does better at the box office then the original.

 

Since the original was a box-office dud, that's not much of a prediction. The new Tron movie grossed more than the original but I don't think it's considered a success either. Critics panned it, fans of the original were disappointed and I don't think the new audience was converted to die-hard Tron fans either.

 

At this point, Blade Runner 2 would be an established sequel. A 'too far out' sequel. But at least now many movie theater patrons would clearly know what this is all about through one of the movie cuts they may have viewed.

 

And with Ridely Scott at the helm, maybe - just maybe - this could work. Especially since Scott was cut off in the end from finishing the movie the way he wanted to. There were a lot of scenes never finished, or even filmed, that he felt strongly about. So he could be a creative mind on a mission wanting to finally produce a Blade Runner movie the way he envisioned.