Warner Bros. Announces Blade Runner Sequel

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Warner Bros. Announces Blade Runner Sequel

blade runner article

Though it's been rumored for years, it looks like we will finally see a follow-up to Blade Runner, for better or for worse.

Ridley Scott's Blade Runner is more than just an all-time classic of the Sci-Fi genre, it's a triumph of filmmaking in general.

Directed by Ridley Scott in 1982 (and based on Philip K. Dick's novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"), Blade Runner not only nabbed a pair of Academy Award nominations upon its release, but has since been selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the United States National Film Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and was named "The 2nd most visually influential film of all time" by the Visual Effects Society in 2007.

And now, it will be getting a sequel, reports Bloody-Disgusting:

An announcement was made today that Warner Bros. Pictures will distribute Alcon Entertainment's follow-up to Ridley Scott's 1982 masterpiece Blade Runner here in the States, with Sony handling all of international.

Hampton Fancher (co-writer of the original) and Michael Green have written the original screenplay based on an idea by Fancher and Ridley Scott. The story takes place several decades after the conclusion of the 1982 original.

Now, before you freak out about yet another soulless Hollywood remake/sequel stomping all over your childhood, wait until you get a load of the talent involved: Prisoners and Sicario director Denis Villeneuve has signed on to helm the picture, with Ridley Scott serving as executive producer. Ryan Gosling will reportedly star, and Harrison Ford will also be returning to reprise his role as Rick Deckard.

Principal photography on Blade Runner 2: Electric (Sheep) Boogaloo (unconfirmed title) is set to begin in July.

And the best (or worst, depending on where you stand) part? Villeneuve's Blade Runner will only be the first of several proposed prequels and sequels intent on expanding the universe of Dick's novel and the original film.

Having just gotten around to seeing Blade Runner -- the theatrical cut, unfortunately :( -- I can't say I'm opposed to the idea. Sure, the sequel will be fighting an uphill battle when it comes to surpassing or even being held in the same light as the original, and Rutger Hauer's villain is absolutely irreplaceable, but if Blade Runner 2: Cool Runnerings (another wholly original working title from yours truly) can produce even one moment as great as the "Tears in Rain" speech, wouldn't it all be worth it?

Source: Bloody-Disgusting

Permalink

image

For Pete's sake, NO. That (Final Cut) ending is perfect. No need to continue. Deckard's story was over.

Villeneuve's Blade Runner will only be the first of several proposed prequels and sequels intent on expanding the universe of Dick's novel and the original film.

So so sick of reading variations of this sentence for what seems like every movie.

Let's stop calling these bloody things films or movies or cinema, let's call them what they are - Big Screen Television, part whatever of a series that will be continued ad nauseum until the dead horse is beaten into a bloody smear on the ground. I'm sick of it and it makes me yearn for Marvel to have its first big box office bomb so that the entire industry will stop trying to be them with all this expanded universe crap.

Oh, and this film will not live up to Blade Runner and everyone knows it.

Well... this might complicate the replicant theory. I forgot which answers Scott and Ford are currently going with, but one good thing is this film might set the answer in stone.

Still, I rather not see another finished story be dusted off to have something tacked on. Scott could have thrown old that awful Prometheus script triple rewrote mess. I'm especially worried they might try to "action it up," and/or simplify plot elements, for the sake of easier translations for the international markets.

Sixcess:

Villeneuve's Blade Runner will only be the first of several proposed prequels and sequels intent on expanding the universe of Dick's novel and the original film.

So so sick of reading variations of this sentence for what seems like every movie.

Let's stop calling these bloody things films or movies or cinema, let's call them what they are - Big Screen Television, part whatever of a series that will be continued ad nauseum until the dead horse is beaten into a bloody smear on the ground. I'm sick of it and it makes me yearn for Marvel to have its first big box office bomb so that the entire industry will stop trying to be them with all this expanded universe crap.

Oh, and this film will not live up to Blade Runner and everyone knows it.

Ooooh, yeah. I don't like that line of turning into a cinematic franchise either.

They're probably doing this "Big Screen Television" (Good name, BTW) because familiar names are all that can draw the big crowds in today. If they actually tried to compete with TV, streaming and waiting for home releases, say by not raising ticket prices to astronomical levels and not pushing out the stupidest rewrites of potentially good scripts, Cinema might not need this crutch.

I can't really judge if Blade Runner 2: the Replicationing may be a rare decent movie out of all of this. I sure don't have high hopes, though.

Given the numerous and varied endings, which one will the movie be following off?

008Zulu:
Given the numerous and varied endings, which one will the movie be following off?

That would be my question too, because then I guess we'd know what the "true" ending really was, and won't that piss people off.

Obviously this is because:

Well, I can live with this, provided two things remain true:

1: They actually attempt to expand upon the universe K. Dick created in the novel, exploring new ideas, rather than just endlessly rehashing the Replicant story.

2: They DON'T go with Ridley Scott's original plan to have Blade Runner and the Alien franchise take place in the same universe.[1]

[1] Seriously...what the ever-loving-fuck was Scott thinking?

WB confirmed EA of hollywood.

Goes without saying I think this is a terrible idea. The Director's Cut was pretty much completely perfect - shot for shot, line for line, note for note - so its legacy doesn't deserve to be tampered with or reframed. What's wrong with a single work of art being, y'know, singular? Can another Blade Runner really ask bigger or better questions - in as beautiful/bittersweet a way - as the original? No, no it can't/won't...

Gosling's an obvious choice to go for, though, what with his glassy eyed more-Replicant-than-Replicant look.

Vigormortis:
2: They DON'T go with Ridley Scott's original plan to have Blade Runner and the Alien franchise take place in the same universe.[1]

That was going to be a thing?!

Tbh, sounds kind of cool.

The replicants are a bit like androids after all?

[1] Seriously...what the ever-loving-fuck was Scott thinking?

Anyone who wanted more Blade Runner stories watched Total Recall 2070.
This was not a problem that needed solving.

Besides, notice how Ridley ISN'T directing? Yeah, the Martian gave him a career again. He doesn't need to do this now.

I'm sure one of the versions of Blade Runner is a very good movie. That's what I've been told, anyway.

This is a reminder to everyone bitching that it's not destroying the first movie by having a sequel. You don't have to see the sequel. No one is coming to take your original movie away. It's not like this is a real universe and somehow making another movie actually harms the characters.

Fucking aye. The way people treat media is fucking scary.

Oh...wonder how many people working on this weren't even born when the first came out?

But yeah, lets ruin something else.

Isn't there some more YA book franchises to adapt?

Cool, another opportunity for Harrison Ford to...

.

Watch out, Indy.

SaneAmongInsane:
This is a reminder to everyone bitching that it's not destroying the first movie by having a sequel. You don't have to see the sequel. No one is coming to take your original movie away. It's not like this is a real universe and somehow making another movie actually harms the characters.

Fucking aye. The way people treat media is fucking scary.

Actually it kind of destroys a big part of the ending by having a sequel with Harrison Ford, sure, the character would still have his doubts about who he is at the end of the first movie but the audience would know for sure.

Vigormortis:
2: They DON'T go with Ridley Scott's original plan to have Blade Runner and the Alien franchise take place in the same universe.

image

Deliberate insertion, or lazy effect re-use? You be the judge.

Brian Tams:
WB confirmed EA of hollywood.

They've already out-EA'd EA when it comes to games, so it's only natural.

i really love the first movie. lost count how many times i have seen it.
at the moment i see it with a neutral mind at it. it could be good but it could suck big time.

moosemaimer:

Vigormortis:
2: They DON'T go with Ridley Scott's original plan to have Blade Runner and the Alien franchise take place in the same universe.

image

Deliberate insertion, or lazy effect re-use? You be the judge.

Isn't the Tyrell corporation mentioned in Prometheus, albeit briefly?

image

No! Bad Warner Brothers! Bad!

A really stupid idea that will result in only one thing, tarnishing the first.

well....if they realy *want* to keep the world of bladerunner about, the sensible (ie NOT the one hollywood usualy picks) is to have mentions/flashbacks from other people... flashbacks that contain the original folks (at least for the first episode/movie) and that use them to introduce a new set of characters.

so, someone remembers deckard, remembers things that happened to him and tells another person about these things. maybe deckard went on to do stuff, maybe he just wandered about the city in a slump. its up to the makers of the sequal. but it would allow for the main story of the finished (it did get 100% done, didnt it? so many re-touch-ups of films lol) version to be kept, without too much in the way of changes.
sort of an 'oh, and i saw him out in the rain one day and he did/said this...'

and then you go on to see what the new people are doing. maybe Tyrell's replicants were in direct opposition to the Wayland-Yutani androids. maybe one is cheaper than the other, or one has more safeguards than the other. maybe they do or dont exist in the exact same 'verse. its up to them.

but what you usualy get (from hollywood i mean) is some lame excuse of how someone ether lived happily ever after (yeah, i saw the original theater version with the voice over and apparent happy ending before the director version lol. i saw it on vhs XD)or how someone didnt live happily ever after cause someone came round and shot em when we were'nt looking lol, and now such-and-such a friend, that we never knew even existed, is pissed and hunting down the killers...

moosemaimer:

Vigormortis:
2: They DON'T go with Ridley Scott's original plan to have Blade Runner and the Alien franchise take place in the same universe.

image

Deliberate insertion, or lazy effect re-use? You be the judge.

It was deliberate, but creators weren't into cannon welding back then so they just put fun references in tease fans. Ripley Scott is still a great director... but he's a really bad judge of scripts.

Sounds like a very bad idea to me.
IMO one of the reasons why Blade Runner was so good is the ambiguous ending in the final and directors cut.
It kept people speculating about a lot of stuff e.g. that Deckard himself is a replicant and that the memories used to create his personality are actually Gaff's who is the real Blade Runner but can no longer be at the front lines due to his injury.

When you create a follow up and characters reoccur there is a good chance that they might set a particular scenario in stone and red tape everything else. This will impact the enjoyment of the original Blade Runner movie as now you know this is that and this is this. No more speculating and interpretation.

Seriously the chances of this going wrong are way higher than the chances of it going right.

SaneAmongInsane:
This is a reminder to everyone bitching that it's not destroying the first movie by having a sequel. You don't have to see the sequel. No one is coming to take your original movie away. It's not like this is a real universe and somehow making another movie actually harms the characters.

That is if you manage to ignore it entirely like living under a rock from now on, which I doubt it since you read stuff on the escapist. You will be exposed to the contents of this movie.
And it will affect how you experience the old one from there on.
Star Wars is still a nice movie but I still have it in the back of my head that Darth Vader is this annoying little space Jesus kid from Tatooine that went all dark side emo teenager because he saw his girlfriend die in a dream.
This knowledge diminishes his presence.

Sometimes the viewer is better off not knowing. And I believe this is very much the case for Blade Runner.

Conrad Zimmerman:
I'm sure one of the versions of Blade Runner is a very good movie. That's what I've been told, anyway.

Just go with either the Director's Cut, or the Final Cut. I kinda prefer the former, as it's decidedly analogue and, on careful inspection, suitably rough (one could say human) around the edges.

Unless you're being sarcastic, and you've seen and thought ill of either one. In which case: you are a bad human being. Or possibly a bad replicant...

So...now's probably a good time to bring up that Blade Runner is about the only famous sci-fi movie i haven't seen. Yet. I have a free afternoon and a desire to know which version and where best i can fulfill this ominous black hole of influence.

Good lord, this is still an irritating announcement even after hearing it last year. I know Hollywood has no more creative life left, but do they have to take all of the good stuff with them? Just let the story be. It's over.

Thanks Disney. Love to hear which beloved films you're going to throw over the kitchen table and fucking them in the ass next.

We already got a sequel to Blade Runner. Westwood did a fine job. But I think, on that note, we should probably stop. There's a real danger of a poorly-handled sequel explaining all the shadow, mystery, and implication away.

Darth Rosenberg:

Conrad Zimmerman:
I'm sure one of the versions of Blade Runner is a very good movie. That's what I've been told, anyway.

Just go with either the Director's Cut, or the Final Cut. I kinda prefer the former, as it's decidedly analogue and, on careful inspection, suitably rough (one could say human) around the edges.

Unless you're being sarcastic, and you've seen and thought ill of either one. In which case: you are a bad human being. Or possibly a bad replicant...

I'm just a really, really big fan of the book.

I'm always for sequels. I want more Blade Runner in this world. I don't like reboots because we don't need another Blade Runner as we have a perfectly fine one already. We don't have a Blade Runner 2. I'll be surprised if it's not shit though.

Train wreck alert!

There's no way. No way at all this will not be as dumb, aimless and purposeless like Prometheus. Much worse actually as Prometheus didn't damage Alien that much.

Blade Runner is possibly my favourite film. The rumors and this news has me split. I'm hopeful but nervous.

The news that Ford is going to be in it is actually really shitty though. I was hoping for a completely different story within the same universe. Introducing Ford in a story decades later ruins the beautiful ambiguous ending and even directly goes against what the film was heavily implying in the first place. The fuck. And then there's the whole question about whether Blade Runner needs a sequel in the first place, and the answer is definitely a resounding 'no'.

On the other hand, I'm excited to see more of this world I love. I hope they really nail the aesthetic. Blade Runner's art direction was sublime. Neo-LA rendered with modern-day effects could be stunning. I also really like Ryan Gosling and I think he could make a pretty chilling replicant.

I also hope they don't turn it into an action film. That would be shit.

I'm not optimistic, but we'll see how it goes.

SaneAmongInsane:
This is a reminder to everyone bitching that it's not destroying the first movie by having a sequel. You don't have to see the sequel. No one is coming to take your original movie away. It's not like this is a real universe and somehow making another movie actually harms the characters.

Fucking aye. The way people treat media is fucking scary.

I get that people get way too emotional about this shit, but stories are important man. And how you expand and retell those stories is important too. They do directly affect the context and impact of the original.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here