Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Robin Bland

Blade Runner Sequel

50 posts in this topic

MMmmmm..... mixed emotions on this one.

"Blade Runner" is one of my favorite films of all time. But since we are rapidly closing on BR's 'future' of 2019 (and not a replicant in sight) it might be nice to leave well enough alone. Leave BR as the unsullied alternate universe masterpiece that it is; like "2001" or "1984."

Not to mention there is the question of Deckard himself; I'm of the Sir Ridley Scott camp on this one... I think Deckard was/is a replicant (created to kill other replicants) and thus having him as an old man seems kind of odd to me personally. For me, the evidence of Deckard being a replicant is rather obvious (at least in the 2007 Final Cut); the unicorn dream and Gaff somehow knowing about the dream, Deckard's 'glowing eyes' that both the owl and the other replicants' have, Gaff's enigmatic line about "You've done a man's job, sir", etc. Not to mention that the reason Deckard was so good at his job was that it 'takes one to know one.'

Not to mention that I really don't want a sequel to "Blade Runner"; its kind of perfect as it is (I'm referring to the 2007 Final Cut; in which all the rough edges of the 1982/91 versions are finally smoothed). A continuation would almost certainly take away from its unique and isolated classic status. I truly don't envy the new production team...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think BR should be left alone.

That said, Vie, what makes you think there are no replicants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think BR should be left alone.

That said, Vie, what makes you think there are no replicants?

* thinking it over.... *

8feac9f9e1da720991b3bbab23abaad1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not remotely enthused about a Blade Runner sequel, either.

It's an outright classic - leave it alone. But they won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not remotely enthused about a Blade Runner sequel, either.

It's an outright classic - leave it alone. But they won't.

Right.

And that said, I suppose the best we can hope for is a sequel that doesn't sully the memory or legacy of the original film too badly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was only a matter of time. They're running out of sci-fi pieces to reboot so they'll take whatever they can get. Star Trek's had it, Star Wars is getting some new ones, Aliens, Terminator - hell, even the original Stargate movie has a sequel on the way. We shouldn't be too surprised really. All we need is a trendy new Flash Gordon and the 80s revival will be complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All we need is a trendy new Flash Gordon and the 80s revival will be complete.

Not until Justin Bieber and Zac Efron star in Weird Science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All we need is a trendy new Flash Gordon and the 80s revival will be complete.

Not until Justin Bieber and Zac Efron star in Weird Science.

Don't laugh; I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a revival of that one (there was a '90s TV series too, if I'm not mistaken and '90s nostalgia is huge now...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can remake it for this day and age and actually make it socially relevant because the message in the movie about social outcasts and riding the coattails of another to social relevance and finding yourself in that process is still relevant. It was all there in the original film, not that it was played up as a drama or anything, but it's there.

However a remake would probably forgo any attempt at that in favor of just having Margot Robbie in a bikini for two hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can remake it for this day and age and actually make it socially relevant because the message in the movie about social outcasts and riding the coattails of another to social relevance and finding yourself in that process is still relevant. It was all there in the original film, not that it was played up as a drama or anything, but it's there.

However a remake would probably forgo any attempt at that in favor of just having Margot Robbie in a bikini for two hours.

Most likely.

Although I can't imagine a new "Weird Science" would be as shamefully sexist and misogynistic as the '84 version (I'd hope not, anyway); they'd probably have to squeeze in some kind of statement on equality or empowerment, I'd imagine. Maybe have the virtual girl kick ass or do some other kind of business to show she's not just some kind of a wish-granting genie/reified wet dream.

So many of those '80s sex comedies treated women like pretty cattle; things to be used for their meat and ultimately discarded. Usually the women in those movies were often disrobed for cheap laughs ("Weird Science" or more infamously "Zapped"), which would at the very least constitute sexual assault (if not attempted rape) here in reality land. Or they were a commodity; to be bought and sold, or 'rented' for sex ("My Tutor" "Can't Buy Me Love" "Risky Business" "My Chauffeur" and about a million others). Even more 'innocent' ones like "Splash" I can barely watch today without squirming; Daryl Hannah's mermaid is essentially Tom Hank's sex toy. He moves her into his home and has endless sex with her without even bothering to find out who she is (!). Never mind that she is (at first) seemingly mute and unable to express any thought except through sex (a mute sex toy; every 16 yr old heterosexual boy's dream, I suppose?). I saw it recently about a year ago, and I just about face palmed every other scene. It's squirm-worthy at times... hard to believe it's a Disney picture.

Luckily, "Blade Runner" really wasn't any of these things; although "Pris" (again played by "Splash"'s Daryl Hannah) being a 'pleasure model' is almost as bad. At least she is shown to have cunning and self-defense skills, which redeems her somewhat. The fact that she is on a quest for self-liberation and a longer life is better than her "Splash" role...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MARTIAN Actress Mackenzie Davis Joins The Cast Of Denis Villeneuve's BLADE RUNNER Sequel Starring Harrison Ford
 
The latest addition to the cast of Sicario director Denis Villeneuve's follow-up to Ridley Scott's sci-fi classic is Canadian actress Mackenzie Davis, who impressed in a supporting role in Scott's The Martian.
 
Gus
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MARTIAN Actress Mackenzie Davis Joins The Cast Of Denis Villeneuve's BLADE RUNNER Sequel Starring Harrison Ford
 
The latest addition to the cast of Sicario director Denis Villeneuve's follow-up to Ridley Scott's sci-fi classic is Canadian actress Mackenzie Davis, who impressed in a supporting role in Scott's The Martian.
 
Gus
 

I love Blade Runner, but do we really need this??   Blade Runner is one of those rare 'perfect' movies; both artistically and of the era in which it was made (the then-emergent cyberpunk subgenre was largely influenced by the movie, as well as a LOT of modern Japanese anime).  I just hope that a new Blade Runner can be as innovative as the original was for 1982.

And I almost hate to mention it, but 2019 (BR's 'far off' future) is only 3 years away and while we don't have replicants or Spinners (and California is in a drought; not drowning in non-stop rain), video phone technology and computers have leapt far beyond the wildest predictions of the movie.  How will they reconcile that in the sequel?  Should they even try? 

I really wish Hollywood could just leave a perfect moment alone.... :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer - no, we really don't need this. I can't even be bothered to think of a scathing comment. It won't go away if I ignore it, but I'm already weary at the very idea of all the inevitable media comparisons. 

I can think of a lot of movies that didn't need sequels, but lent themselves at least to a continuing story. Then, you can take a sequel, let it stand or fall on its own merits. This, to me, just seems like pointless floundering. Or maybe, to give it the benefit of the doubt, it's a new idea that they've just hitched to the BR name to sell it. Seems unlikely, though. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer - no, we really don't need this. I can't even be bothered to think of a scathing comment. It won't go away if I ignore it, but I'm already weary at the very idea of all the inevitable media comparisons. 

I can think of a lot of movies that didn't need sequels, but lent themselves at least to a continuing story. Then, you can take a sequel, let it stand or fall on its own merits. This, to me, just seems like pointless floundering. Or maybe, to give it the benefit of the doubt, it's a new idea that they've just hitched to the BR name to sell it. Seems unlikely, though. 

 

Blade Runner is just such a perfect movie; it begins, it ends ("it's too bad [it] won't live... but then again, [what] does?").   And a sequel would destroy the wonderful ambiguity of whether or not Deckard is a replicant himself (I'm in the 'he is' category; largely because of the unicorn dream and the origami... not to mention the reason he's not 'allowed' to quit, as Bryant says). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer - no, we really don't need this. I can't even be bothered to think of a scathing comment. It won't go away if I ignore it, but I'm already weary at the very idea of all the inevitable media comparisons. 

I can think of a lot of movies that didn't need sequels, but lent themselves at least to a continuing story. Then, you can take a sequel, let it stand or fall on its own merits. This, to me, just seems like pointless floundering. Or maybe, to give it the benefit of the doubt, it's a new idea that they've just hitched to the BR name to sell it. Seems unlikely, though. 

 

Blade Runner is just such a perfect movie; it begins, it ends ("it's too bad [it] won't live... but then again, [what] does?").   And a sequel would destroy the wonderful ambiguity of whether or not Deckard is a replicant himself (I'm in the 'he is' category; largely because of the unicorn dream and the origami... not to mention the reason he's not 'allowed' to quit, as Bryant says). 

I'm in the "he is" camp too, and no, like you, I don't need that confirmed.

But ambiguity as a quality in and of itself, is becoming a rarer species. Everything has to be explicable, explained and labored upon these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not be checking out the new Blade Runner purely because I have an active desire not to see any more of that world and story.  I really enjoy it...and I like the way it all ended, and seeing old ass Harrison Ford trying to once again reclaim the glory days in a role where I personally would rather it was left ambiguous (because for me I like that he could be a replicant, but I also like that I don't know for sure)...nothing about that appeals to me.  Even from a visual standpoint, what is so impressive about Blade Runner is that the film is all pre-CG...those amazing shots of the city and the flying cars and everything are all models and practical effects.  The cinephile in me is really impressed by how it was all made...seeing it all recreated by a computer could never impress me as much.  I know that they can visually recreate it all, so even if they make it look pitch perfect...it won't grab me. 

Storywise, I can see very little good that will come out of it.  It's just one I can't get interested in seeing them milk because apparently the video sales are decent now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer - no, we really don't need this. I can't even be bothered to think of a scathing comment. It won't go away if I ignore it, but I'm already weary at the very idea of all the inevitable media comparisons. 

I can think of a lot of movies that didn't need sequels, but lent themselves at least to a continuing story. Then, you can take a sequel, let it stand or fall on its own merits. This, to me, just seems like pointless floundering. Or maybe, to give it the benefit of the doubt, it's a new idea that they've just hitched to the BR name to sell it. Seems unlikely, though. 

 

Blade Runner is just such a perfect movie; it begins, it ends ("it's too bad [it] won't live... but then again, [what] does?").   And a sequel would destroy the wonderful ambiguity of whether or not Deckard is a replicant himself (I'm in the 'he is' category; largely because of the unicorn dream and the origami... not to mention the reason he's not 'allowed' to quit, as Bryant says). 

I'm in the "he is" camp too, and no, like you, I don't need that confirmed.

But ambiguity as a quality in and of itself, is becoming a rarer species. Everything has to be explicable, explained and labored upon these days.

^
Unfortunately this.   That fragile, ambiguous, soap bubble reality that Blade Runner exists in will be destroyed.   I don't want to know if Rachel made it or not; or if Decker was allowed to just leave.   Their future was as enigmatic as the spinning top at the end of "Inception"; and the balance was as fragile.  
They should leave well enough alone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Concept Art And Details For Denis Villeneuve's BLADE RUNNER Sequel Released

The first concept art for the Blade Runner sequel has been released, and it depicts a very different Los Angeles to the one we saw in the classic original starring Harrison Ford.

^
That 'climate gone berserk' imagery is about the only forecast of the Blade Runner future that's rapidly becoming reality, I'm afraid... 
:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still very leery of a Blade Runner sequel.  

ewis1.gif

Pro side:

* Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies of all time.  Beautifully realized, it's one of the most textured and fully realized 'futures' ever realized on film.

Con: 

* That same 'future' is only 3 years from now (!).   Calling it 'dated' is a bit of an understatement.  

Leaving it 'alone' and time-locked in 1982 keeps it forever archived as a classic 'future that never was'; like "1984" or "2001: A Space Odyssey."  But making a near-40 years later sequel breaks that fragile time-lock and drags that whole vision kicking and screaming into our future now, where it'll be subject to the slings and arrows of criticisms about inaccurate future forecasting (of which "Blade Runner" is full of).   The only way it works is if you make it clear that the original's future of 2019 is some kind of alternate reality or you just ignore the original's date altogether (kind of hard when the date of 2019 is in the opening texts of ALL versions of the movie).   Neither option really works; especially when it's just to cash in on the original. 

Pro:  

*  Modern technology could make Blade Runner's future better realized.

Con:

*  Since Blade Runner inspired basically whole subgenres of science fiction (cyberpunk, a lot of anime, the Matrix movies, etc), a sequel runs the dire risk of looking less like the original and more like the movies it inspired; like a copy of a copy, rather than the original work.  

A similar problem that "John Carter" faced; the 2012 movie was based on a hundred year old book that inspired everything from "Flash Gordon" to "Star Wars"; but the movie wound up looking more like an outtake reel from the SW prequels.   

 

Call me a pessimist, but a sequel to Blade Runner just REEKS of a bad idea; one that won't add to the original, but could potentially sully it.   Kind of like the JAWS and Exorcist sequels; they added nothing to their originals.    Remember back when great movies DIDN'T always need a sequel?   Like "Citizen Kane" or "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"?   "Blade Runner" was in that class of movie; now it's going to have a "Matrix: Revolutions" on its back.  :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SUICIDE SQUAD Actor Jared Leto Joins The Cast Of Denis Villeneuve's BLADE RUNNER Sequel

In what's sure to be seen as a surprise bit of casting, The Joker himself has rounded out the cast of Sicario director Denis Villeneuve's follow-up to Ridley Scott's sci-fi classic, Blade Runner.

Best joke I read about this was someone pretending the headline was "Jared Leto is set to test Harrison Ford's Patience in Blade Runner Sequel"

And Vie...I agree, I just think it is a bad move to make a sequel in most ways.  There is nothing this movie can do that can make me get on board I think. Whether you think Deckard is a replicant or not...the mystery of that plot element is part of the fun.  If you think he is a replicant, well then seeing him 100 years older puts a damper on things. And even if they state unequivocally that he is a replicant and they have same bullshit excuse to explain his obvious aging (there isn't enough convincing CG in the world to make Harrison Ford look younger...his face is too droopy!), then I feel that is a loss for everyone. 

To me, it was a great movie that left the audience with the right kind of questions, and a sequel can only harm those thought provoking elements of the story.  It will look great (I am sure), but creatively, I think no matter which direction they go they can only bring harm and alienate half of the fanbase who have their own thoughts and theories on things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SUICIDE SQUAD Actor Jared Leto Joins The Cast Of Denis Villeneuve's BLADE RUNNER Sequel

In what's sure to be seen as a surprise bit of casting, The Joker himself has rounded out the cast of Sicario director Denis Villeneuve's follow-up to Ridley Scott's sci-fi classic, Blade Runner.

Best joke I read about this was someone pretending the headline was "Jared Leto is set to test Harrison Ford's Patience in Blade Runner Sequel"

And Vie...I agree, I just think it is a bad move to make a sequel in most ways.  There is nothing this movie can do that can make me get on board I think. Whether you think Deckard is a replicant or not...the mystery of that plot element is part of the fun.  If you think he is a replicant, well then seeing him 100 years older puts a damper on things. And even if they state unequivocally that he is a replicant and they have same bullshit excuse to explain his obvious aging (there isn't enough convincing CG in the world to make Harrison Ford look younger...his face is too droopy!), then I feel that is a loss for everyone. 

To me, it was a great movie that left the audience with the right kind of questions, and a sequel can only harm those thought provoking elements of the story.  It will look great (I am sure), but creatively, I think no matter which direction they go they can only bring harm and alienate half of the fanbase who have their own thoughts and theories on things. 

^
Ridley Scott himself championed the Deckard-replicant theory.  But part of the beauty of Blade Runner is that it allows (or is it now allowed?) the audience to have that conceit of ambiguity.   With a sequel, that element is destroyed.   He'll either be an old replicant (which directly contradicts their '4 year lifespan'; and I don't care what that stupid, tacked-on voiceover of Ford's says in the 1982 version... that's not the final cut for me) or ... he's just an old human who kills replicants ( *yawn* ).   I would almost be intrigued by a BR sequel if I knew that Ford WASN'T going to be in it; but 
knowing he's back serves to answer the most critical question (the question of Deckard's status), and thereby ruins the movie before I see a single second of footage. 

Blade Runner wasn't just a rich future-that-never-was milieu.  It was like a dinner theatre murder mystery.   As Deckard tracks the replicants, the audience participates in the mystery of Deckard as well.   That's over now.    With this sequel, we (the audience of BR fans) are going to be spoon fed the answer.  

NO thanks. 

"2010" (1984) almost went down this path; it was the sequel to a classic (Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey") and it too, tried to straddle the lanes between ambiguity and literal science fiction.  The result was a decent, if uneven, science fiction movie.   Good enough, but nowhere near the classic the original was and forever will be.    In fact, the best parts of "2010" (and the reasons I didn't boo the hell out of it when I first read/saw it) were the scenes with the Soviets (hehe) and Americans reaching Jupiter and boarding the abandoned Discovery together.  Those were solid.   The moments it (book & movie) faltered and stumbled were the scenes depicting the ghostly 'super-spirit' of David Bowman.   They felt silly, clumsy, and they nearly wound up ruining the entire sequel for me.   They felt like they belonged in another movie.   I would've preferred if they reached the monolith and NEVER encountered Bowman; left his fate up to the audience (he could still be a 'starchild' out there... floating in deep space), or perhaps they just read Bowman's 'no landings on Europa' transmission at the end, wondering who (or what) sent it.   I think Arthur Clarke (and Peter Hyams) went too literal regarding Bowman's fate.   

I see something far worse ahead with a Blade Runner sequel; since a much bigger chunk of Blade Runner rests on the ambiguity of NOT knowing.   The original Blade Runner was sort of a 'Shrodinger's Cat' of a movie.   It could have two endings, depending on the viewer's interpretation of what they saw; as long as they left the box closed.

Now, we're going to open the box and simply find a dead cat. :S

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly? I like 2010 far better.

 

Those pesky opinions again. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0