Ridley Scott to direct Blade Runner Sequel

mike65

So then after Prometheus comes a follow up to the most iconic cult science-fiction film of the 80s (yes it is)

articler here

Almost certainly a dreadful idea of course.

paddy kerins

How long before he pulls out, I wonder?

Funglegunk

Was just about to post this. I'll reserve judgement till I actually hear what this is all about. I will say though, that having Harrison Ford in it is probably a bad idea.

Sad Professor

Have Blade Runner on in the background as I speak. Anyway, I'll believe this when I see it. Scott is always attached to a dozen different projects at once. This is how he ensures he always has another film to start shooting. Most of them never happen due to script or budgetary reasons.

pickarooney

Yeah, starring Vincent Chase...

Hank_Jones

He's made some stinkers lately,
selling his soul for a few quid really.

Don't see this being anything great,
I'd have more hope for Prometheus than another Blade Runner,
but still not much.

Robin Hood and his attachment to all sorts of shíte has transformed my opinion of him.

pixelburp

<shia leBeouf>

NO-no-no-no-no-no-no-no ...

</shia leBeouf>

Think that's all I have to say on the subject: a really terrible idea, and there seems no depths Hollywood won't plumb to diddle our cinematic nostalgia.

Duggy747

Ideas for a Bladerunner sequel had been running around for years. Scott always had a special place for his masterpiece what with the constant tinkering he gave it.

A bad idea, I think, but it's not official yet so..........

humanji

And I was just thinking to myself that what Bladerunner was really lacking was 3D...

But I'll reserve my judgement till more details come out. Sure didn't we all scoff when they announced they were making a sequel to "House Party"? But man, Kid and Play nailed that performance in HP2!

Zillah

humanji wrote: »

And I was just thinking to myself that what Bladerunner was really lacking was 3D...

I'm not a big fan of 3D in the cinema, but I think those postindustrial LA landscapes could actually be really fantastic in 3D.

Turtyturd

Duggy747 wrote: »

Ideas for a Bladerunner sequel had been running around for years. Scott always had a special place for his masterpiece what with the constant tinkering he gave it.

A bad idea, I think, but it's not official yet so..........

Just as long as he doesn't start throwing in cuddly bears and gungans for the kids it can't be too bad.

chin_grin

mike65 wrote: »

Almost certainly a dreadful idea of course.

Why I thanked your post.

Hmm. A few things I'd like to see would be to stick with the original feel and design of the first. A nice voice cameo by Ford (obviously if it's going to be a sequel or prequel then him showing up would look ridiculous).

Once this doesn't turn in to an iRobot style blockbuster.

DominoDub

Hard to know if he can "Replicant" the beauty and feeling of the first one. The controlled use of the basic effects available at the time made it feel more real. Also the soundtrack is the key for me will they get Vangelis ?

The Rook

DominoDub wrote: »

Also the soundtrack is the key for me will they get Vangelis ?

I hope to God not. That for me was one of the worst things about the entire film ... the same theme being played on the saxamaphone all film long ... terrible, just terrible.

Funglegunk

The Rook wrote: »

I hope to God not. That for me was one of the worst things about the entire film ... the same theme being played on the saxamaphone all film long ... terrible, just terrible.

Ahhhh come on. The Blade Runner soundtrack is one of the best of all time, suits the film perfectly. Enhances it.

Skerries

not want!

it will dilute the original like so many other crap sequels

pixelburp

I've thought about this a little more and the conspiracy nut in me wonders if this isn't some tactic by Scott to make sure it doesn't get made. This Alcon Entertainment crowd bought the rights to Blade Runner earlier in the year, and looking at their filmography, they're quite a new company with a lot of garbage in their catalogue.

I'm wondering now if Scott basically used his clout to make a powergrab for Directing & Producing authority, just so he could keep the movie in development hell, and stop the production being green-lit under the helm of hacks. Afterall, Blade Runner is something of a beloved project of Scott, why wouldn't it be, and he'd be the last person wanting it's memory sullied by some godawful sequel. Better to ensure the project sinks in red-tape now than see it produced under the stewardship of ... I dunno, Brett Ratner or someone.

Sure; I know Scott's going back to the Alien universe with Prometheus, but this announcement seems too random and pointless to be completely believable, hence I'm wondering if there's more to it than meets the eye.

henryporter

It'll be interesting to see if it shapes up against the more interesting major sci-fi movie to be made in years; Neuromancer, or even Ubik. They haven't made a good Philip K. Dick derived movie since Blade Runner so going off the script completely will just be a farce imo. Maybe they'll just make a movie about the final revelation of Deckard meets the toad...

FlashD

A sequel to Bladrunner with Harrison is a bad idea.

The whole mystery about the original Bladrunner is if Harrison is a replicant, that's what has fans talking about for the last 3 decades, the question dosen't need to be answered, if they start answering questions then they will take the magic away from the original.

A new movie set around the Bladrunner world might be a better idea. A Harrison voiceover would also be a nice idea.

scico rocks

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

crazygeryy

If this isn't a sign that the film industry is running out of ideas nothing is.the first one was total tripe , now they are in talk s for a sequel.
Harrison ford will be in nappys by the time its made.
I'm sick of seeing sequels and remakes coming out.

chin_grin

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73889287

crazygeryy

chin_grin wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73889287

And? that thread is 6 months old

Maudi

crazygeryy wrote: »

If this isn't a sign that the film industry is running out of ideas nothing is.the first one was total tripe , now they are in talk s for a sequel.
Harrison ford will be in nappys by the time its made.
I'm sick of seeing sequels and remakes coming out.

mon ami..your post heralds the fact that you have no idea what constitutes a 'good'movie.i.m.o

o1s1n

crazygeryy wrote: »

the first one was total tripe

Sorry, what?

SVG

crazygeryy wrote: »

And? that thread is 6 months old

Just another sign that the boards industry is running out of new ideas.

Sad Professor

Merged so as to save everyone having to repeat themselves.

mike65

o1s1n wrote: »

Sorry, what?

Kill him! (or send him off world at least! )

crazygeryy

Maudi wrote: »

crazygeryy wrote: »

If this isn't a sign that the film industry is running out of ideas nothing is.the first one was total tripe , now they are in talk s for a sequel.
Harrison ford will be in nappys by the time its made.
I'm sick of seeing sequels and remakes coming out.

mon ami..your post heralds the fact that you have no idea what constitutes a 'good'movie.i.m.o

I'm sorry but thats a bit of a sweeping statement but! Your entitled to your opinion.i thought it was rubbish.i turned it off after 30 mins.

crazygeryy

o1s1n wrote: »

crazygeryy wrote: »

the first one was total tripe

Sorry, what?

Yea I didn't like it at all.and I have decent enough taste in movies (well I like to think I do) but I didn't like that.

o1s1n

crazygeryy wrote: »

Yea I didn't like it at all.and I have decent enough taste in movies but I didn't like that.

The first part of your above post completely contradicts the second half :pac:

nyarlothothep

I struggle to see what the point of making a Blade Runner sequel is. The first film is complete in itself, yes even with the mystery as to whether Deckard is a replicant or not, that's part of the appeal. The first film is a singular statement, a precursor to cyberpunk (imo I consider it a cyberpunk film but then my definitions are loose rather than strict/neat), a work of visual beauty (the effects haven't dated at all), with a narrative which is endowed with a philosophical, political and personal depth which few artistic pieces not only in film history, but in human history itself, can rival. Its peers are Shakespearean plays (I actually think its better than all of them), Michaelangelo's David and Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. Oh yeah I forgot to mention not only is it kickass in visuals, story, being way ahead of its time, trendsetting and character development, the soundtrack is fcking unreal. Its fine art on screen. And I'm not even a fanboy. I admit to being a little bit bored watching it, but I can see the incredible skill and artistry on display which feck all other films or works of art in history can equal. And the thing is making something so incredible is a one off, a unique combination of people, circumstances and event in time which lead to its realisation. If you get to that level of perfection the first time, replicating it the second time and 30 years later is highly improbable. And as I asked at the beginning of this post, what is the point? Why make a sequel to something which doesn't need one?

Corholio

crazygeryy wrote: »

first one was total tripe

crazygeryy

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I struggle to see what the point of making a Blade Runner sequel is. The first film is complete in itself, yes even with the mystery as to whether Deckard is a replicant or not, that's part of the appeal. The first film is a singular statement, a precursor to cyberpunk (imo I consider it a cyberpunk film but then my definitions are loose rather than strict/neat), a work of visual beauty (the effects haven't dated at all), with a narrative which is endowed with a philosophical, political and personal depth which few artistic pieces not only in film history, but in human history itself, can rival. Its peers are Shakespearean plays (I actually think its better than all of them), Michaelangelo's David and Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. Oh yeah I forgot to mention not only is it kickass in visuals, story, being way ahead of its time, trendsetting and character development, the soundtrack is fcking unreal. Its fine art on screen. And I'm not even a fanboy. I admit to being a little bit bored watching it, but I can see the incredible skill and artistry on display which feck all other films or works of art in history can equal. And the thing is making something so incredible is a one off, a unique combination of people, circumstances and event in time which lead to its realisation. If you get to that level of perfection the first time, replicating it the second time and 30 years later is highly improbable. And as I asked at the beginning of this post, what is the point? Why make a sequel to something which doesn't need one?

Why?

MONEY and LACK OF IDEAS.

saintsaltynuts

Havent seen Blade Runner in years off to download it now suckers!

nyarlothothep

crazygeryy wrote: »

Why?

MONEY and LACK OF IDEAS.

Its like taking a sh1t from a balcony so that it lands on someone's head. Why?!

pixelburp

crazygeryy wrote: »

I'm sorry but thats a bit of a sweeping statement but! Your entitled to your opinion.i thought it was rubbish.i turned it off after 30 mins.

With respect, if you say you didn't even watch it to its conclusion, you're not really in a position to legitimately claim a film is good/bad/whatever. At least watch something to its end, then form an opinion on something. Not make some knee-jerk reaction, then start a thread that comes across as trolling a little

Mickeroo

crazygeryy wrote: »

I'm sorry but thats a bit of a sweeping statement but! Your entitled to your opinion.i thought it was rubbish.i turned it off after 30 mins.

Wait, so you haven't actually watched Blade Runner then?

crazygeryy

Mickeroo wrote: »

crazygeryy wrote: »

I'm sorry but thats a bit of a sweeping statement but! Your entitled to your opinion.i thought it was rubbish.i turned it off after 30 mins.

Wait, so you haven't actually watched Blade Runner then?

You ve never turned a movie off because it was so bad you couldn't watch it?

Boo Radley

crazygeryy wrote: »

You ve never turned a movie off because it was so bad you couldn't watch it?

We all have but allow me to use this analogy. If you read one chapter of a book, didn't like it and stopped reading it, would you then go ahead and write a review about it or make claims about its worth based on so little?

pixelburp

crazygeryy wrote: »

You ve never turned a movie off because it was so bad you couldn't watch it?

Everyone has, but that doesn't make it a basis for forming an opinion on the rest of the movie. Met plenty of people who thought the film overrated, never so heinous that they couldn't sit through the entire thing.

johnny_ultimate

I'm sick of seeing sequels and remakes coming out.

Then please take some time to indulge in the vast array of original independent and world cinema being released And ignore Hollywood's frequent efforts to violently abuse anything resembling the same.

(I think I'm going to start copying and pasting those sentences everytime we get a 'too many sequels / remakes' thread)

On a more related note, I would be curious to see a more loyal adaptation of Dick's Do Androids Dream.... It probably would be pretty bad (it's very much a literary book) but could be an interesting experiment.

Mickeroo

crazygeryy wrote: »

You ve never turned a movie off because it was so bad you couldn't watch it?

Not that I can think of. Usually I tend to watch the whole film before I decide whether I don't like it or not.

Its impossible to properly judge a film on its first half an hour, especially a film like Blade Runner.

crazygeryy

Boo Radley wrote: »

crazygeryy wrote: »

You ve never turned a movie off because it was so bad you couldn't watch it?

We all have but allow me to use this analogy. If you read one chapter of a book, didn't like it and stopped reading it, would you then go ahead and write a review about it or make claims about its worth based on so little?

That's a good analogy and I take your point.all im saying is I turned it on it bored me so I didn't continue watching it.I'm sure loads of people do it and of course you can form an opinion on a movie or book after a few chapters or 30 mins etc how many times have u heard I walked out of the cinema half way through.

pixelburp

Mickeroo wrote: »

Its impossible to properly judge a film on its first half an hour, especially a film like Blade Runner.

I'd argue it's impossible to judge Bladerunner without seeing the 2/3 versions of it either. There's plenty of legitimate and interesting discussions around the different variations of the film and they're all worth checking out.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Then please take some time to indulge in
On a more related note, I would be curious to see a more loyal adaptation of Dick's Do Androids Dream.... It probably would be pretty bad (it's very much a literary book) but could be an interesting experiment.

From what I recall of the novel, it's very typically K Dick; quite trippy and meandering, with no clear resolution by the end. Gotta be honest, he's an author that I find hard to see the hype over, and his movie adaptations made the best of some sometimes ... "distinct" prose haha.

That said, very surprised nobody has ever tried adapting The Man in the High Castle.

pixelburp

crazygeryy wrote: »

That's a good analogy and I take your point.all im saying is I turned it on it bored me so I didn't continue watching it.I'm sure loads of people do it and of course you can form an opinion on a movie or book after a few chapters or 30 mins etc how many times have u heard I walked out of the cinema been said.

No, you really can't. I'd lose count the number of times I've seen movies where the final third lets the side down. Conversely I've seen & read plenty of novels, films & TV series where after a bumpy start things really pick up. You can't form an opinion on something without at least experiencing the whole of it.

To be honest, 'tripe' is not the same as 'boring' and maybe instead of coming out with a trollish comment along those lines you elaborate on why you didn't enjoy it. And if you did find things boring then you just proved the point I made in the last paragraph - things pick up and it all comes to a head by the end. Culminating in one of cinema's greatest denouements & puzzles.

johnny_ultimate

pixelburp wrote: »

From what I recall of the novel, it's very typically K Dick; quite trippy and meandering, with no clear resolution by the end. Gotta be honest, he's an author that I find hard to see the hype over, and his movie adaptations made the best of some sometimes ... "distinct" prose haha.

That said, very surprised nobody has ever tried adapting The Man in the High Castle.

It is telling that the one real true adaptation of his work - A Scanner Darkly - was a somewhat awkwardly realised piece of filmmaking.

Given his penchant for drug induced writing frenzies, a lot of his work is hit and miss. But when he hit the mark, he hit it spectacularly. Ubik is a particularly wonderous creation.

crazygeryy

pixelburp wrote: »

crazygeryy wrote: »

That's a good analogy and I take your point.all im saying is I turned it on it bored me so I didn't continue watching it.I'm sure loads of people do it and of course you can form an opinion on a movie or book after a few chapters or 30 mins etc how many times have u heard I walked out of the cinema been said.

No, you really can't. I'd lose count the number of times I've seen movies where the final third lets the side down. Conversely I've seen & read plenty of novels, films & TV series where after a bumpy start things really pick up.

To be honest, 'tripe' is not the same as 'boring' and maybe instead of coming out with a trollish comment along those lines you elaborate on why you didn't enjoy it. And if you did find things boring then you just proved the point I made in the last paragraph - things pick up and it all comes to a head by the end. Culminating in one of cinema's greatest denouements & puzzles.

Look don't accuse me of being trollish.your entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.i turned it off after 30 minutes or so because it was tripe / boring whatever way u want to put it.
You liked it I didnt end of.

pixelburp

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It is telling that the one real true adaptation of his work - A Scanner Darkly - was a somewhat awkwardly realised piece of filmmaking.

Given his penchant for drug induced writing frenzies, a lot of his work is hit and miss. But when he hit the mark, he hit it spectacularly. Ubik is a particularly wonderous creation.

True that; I seem to vaguely recall a comment that the new adaptation of We can Remember It For You, Wholesale (or Total Recall as we know it) is going to be slightly more faithful to the original text than Arnie's famous version. Might have imagined that.

Boo Radley

crazygeryy wrote: »

That's a good analogy and I take your point.all im saying is I turned it on it bored me so I didn't continue watching it.I'm sure loads of people do it and of course you can form an opinion on a movie or book after a few chapters or 30 mins etc how many times have u heard I walked out of the cinema half way through.

I understand it's possible that a person won't relate to a film after 30 minutes and make a decision to stop watching (although I can't imagine a situation where I'd leave the actual cinema).

That said, it doesn't really make sense to blast the entire film as being poor when you simply do not have sufficient knowledge to make such claims.

For example, I watched the first Twilight film in its entirety before even considering bashing it, even though I had a fair idea what to expect. If I started critiquing it without watching it I would have felt disingenuous and open to criticism myself.

pixelburp

crazygeryy wrote: »

Look don't accuse me of being trollish.your entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.i turned it off after 30 minutes or so because it was tripe / boring whatever way u want to put it.
You liked it I didnt end of.

Well, this is why this place is called a discussion forum. It's kind of expected that when you throw out a comment as flippant as "oh, this was total tripe" we're all adult enough to discuss the whys, why-nots & so on, and it smacks of being disingenuous when it turns out you haven't really seen the whole thing. We're all aware we have opinions, it's jsut expected that we debate them without being defensive about it