Please No, Not a Blade Runner Sequel

bowman9991 submitted a story that ought to make even the most stone-hearted amongst you cry. He says "Travis Wright, one of the writers behind Eagle Eye, has been working on a sequel to Ridley Scott's Sci-Fi classic Blade Runner. Script proposals have explored the nature of the off-world colonies, what happens to the Tyrell Corporation in the wake of its founder's death, and what would become of Rachel. Travis said he intends to write a script 'with or without anyone's blessings.' Director Ridley Scott appears interested in a sequel too. At Comic-Con in 2007 Ridley said, 'If you have any scripts, you know where to send them.' It's doubtful he'll have time anytime soon though. He's already stated his next two science fiction films will be an adaptation of Aldous Huxley's Brave New Word with Leonardo DiCaprio and an adaptation of Joe Haldeman's The Forever War."

Comments

I've got a better idea

[elrous0]

How about you devote all the energy, time, and effort that you would have put into doing yet another ill-advised sequel or remake into writing something ORIGINAL? Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs, or Slumdog Millionaire. At the very least, you'll be able to sleep at night. Do you really want to die being best known as the "asshole who wrote that god-awful sequel to Blade Runner"?

And, on a related note, if you're a filmmaker and have ever thought to yourself "Hey, I bet a remake of 'It's a Wonderful Life' starring Ice Cube and some sassy kids would be great!" please, dear God, stay out of Hollywood.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really want to die being best known as the "asshole who wrote that god-awful sequel to Blade Runner"?

Depends on how many million I made off that movie.

Myself, I'll wait for the Final Ultimate Director's Cut Armageddon Release of this one.

Re:I've got a better idea

[eldavojohn]

Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs, or Slumdog Millionaire.

You list three good original movies but I counter that there is so much more to them than just needed money to make. Look at the directors/writers: Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino & Danny Boyle respectively. Now look at those three directors/writers names and notice how they rarely--if ever--attach themselves to bad projects. I think the three movies you listed were kind of like pet projects of these directors and there's not a lot of these great movies laying around just waiting to receive funding with the vision that these three movies you listed had.

You think you have a better idea but these studios have one directive: make money. And that's what they'll do & they'll do it better than you would. This isn't art, this is business. You aren't going to be taken seriously if you point Resevoir Dogs that made $147,839 on opening weekend in the states or Momento that made $235,488 on opening weekend in the states. Those amounts of money are a blip on the radar to what a franchise name makes them within three days.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Scrameustache]

yet another ill-advised sequel or remake into writing something ORIGINAL? Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs

Reservoir Dogs is a remake of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_on_Fire_(1987_film)

Re:I've got a better idea

[Cowmonaut]

Oh come off it. Sure both are about a gang of thieves and a jewelery heist with an undercover cop, just like Cloverfield and Godzilla are just movies of a town getting destroyed. If you've watched both Reservoir Dogs and City on Fire you won't come close to confusing the two. The way the stories are told are completely different and an important part of why the film is good.

Some scenes are pretty much the same as well in the movies, just like the car chase at the end of Death Proof was straight out of Vanishing Point. Not really a knock off, but you can see where it came from. Tarrantino isn't alone in doing that either.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Gilmoure]

Star Trek is turning into a Shakespeare kind of production. Within 50 years, they'll be discussing who's Kirk or Spock is better and then Trouble With Tribbles will be performed in the park every 4th of July.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Justtaint]

Reservoir Dogs opened in a whopping 19 theaters making that a respectable $7781 per theater. Memento opened in 11 theaters, making $21,408 per theater. Your point is still valid since neither movie was ever wide released (Memento made it into 531 theaters, RD only 61), but to only point to opening weekend numbers is almost meaningless. As a recent example, Gran Torino only made $271,720 on opening weekend, but has gone on to gross over $100M. Just because a movie opens in limited release does not mean it won't end up making money.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Pope]

Well, to truly appreciate Shakespeare, you really need to hear it in the original Klingon.

Re:I've got a better idea

[philspear]

Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs, or Slumdog Millionaire.

Thanks man! You've just given me ideas for my next three movies, Memento 2, Reservoir Dogs 2, and Slumdog Millionaire 2!

Re:I've got a better idea

[lymond01]

As you get older, less and less is original. "Original" work is generally (as the initial poster and then the child posts pointed out) something you haven't heard of yet. Stick around for a few decades and you'll realize just about every song you hear, every movie you see, every book you read, you have heard, seen, and read before in some fashion.

But don't give up hope: there may be no original plots, but a story is all in the telling, and THAT can be original.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Chris Mattern]

(1) Yeah, more of a prequel than a reboot, but watch: The cannon will be altered by this installment.

But the Enterprise doesn't have cannon. Maybe they'll alter the photon torpedoes instead.

Re:I've got a better idea

[hesiod]

It doesn't cost you more $2000 in equipment and then your elbow grease.

Sure, as long as you:
* have no Hi-def widescreen
* don't want multiple shots of the same scene
* use low-quality audio
* use non-pirated software
* have no CG effects
* don't include computer costs
* don't pay anyone
* consider working time worth nothing

That $2000 will cover a single halfway-decent camera.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Yeah. Right. Then explain why they were about to put Slumgdog Millionaires out to pasture on DVD until word got out that it was getting serious Oscar attention?

Your post is the typical ignorant apology for Business As Usual we hear sheeple bleat every other day.

Your theory leads to hive mind and idiocracy, as one never goes broke underestimating the intelligence or the taste of the average american.

The entertainment industry is one of the single greatest blocks to genuine human progress.

RS

Re:I've got a better idea

[Bemopolis]

To beam or not to beam; that is the question:
Whether 'tis Dagger of the Mind to suffer
The photon torpedoes of Outrageous Okona,
Or to take arms against a sea of Tribbles,
And by transporting, send them?

(Parody ended due to low serum caffeine levels.)

Re:I've got a better idea

[sorak]

This isn't art, this is business.

Excellent point. If you want something artistic and original, go see an indie film. If you want something high budget, with mainstream appeal, go see "Blade Runner 2: Wrath of the Electric Sheep".

Re:I've got a better idea

[CFTM]

Like CG and hi-def are a requisite for creating art? I don't think so, it may be your requirement for viewership but that's a different issue altogether. There are plenty of hi-quality films that utilize little-to-no CG and frankly basic CG is doable on a desktop computer. Am I going to be able to render a highly complex scene? Of course not but that isn't within the scope of my aspirations at the moment, and don't take my word on any of this. But I think Robert Rodriquez is a bit more credible than me. If you happen to own the collectors edition of Sin City there are some great interviews with Mr. Rodriguez talking about his career and his approach, and he argues that aspiring filmmakers have access to every tool they need to make high quality films.

You don't need multiple cameras to do multiple angles on a single shot, you just need to do the scene multiple times. Does it open the door to continuity errors? Of course it does, but continuity errors are always going to be something to contend with so what's it really matter? The consumer level software is not prohibitively expensive and both Vegas and i Movie will put together a film, and with some options. It ain't studio work, but if your editor is talented it still looks good. Vegas costs next to nothing and is used in production houses for certain areas of work. You don't need top of the line equipment to create quality, you need top of the line equipment to make a studio picture but studio pictures rarely are for anything but entertainment.

And I can get a camera right now for $1200 that is considered, among idie film makers to be a very good camera. I can then go get the other equipment I need for the other $800. I'm not saying these prices are for new equipment but the used market is there...

Re:I've got a better idea

[Wandering Wombat]

Get off my thread.

Re:I've got a better idea

[rgviza]

Blade Runner made $4,749 average per theater opening weekend, which in inflated dollars (as of 1992 when Reservoir Dogs opened) is $6899.50, less than Quentin Tarantino's pet project, per theatre.

However it went on to gross 32m over it's lifetime (domestically), but cost 14m to make. At release it was considered a spectacular failure.

Theater by theater RD was more profitable. I don't believe that the idea that Ridley Scott would make this his pet project and do it right is very far fetched at all. The bar is set pretty damn high though... The effects STILL look good, the acting was great, and the music is out of this world. It's a stunning, hypnotic film. I have the director's cut and still watch it periodically.

One of the most beautiful movies ever made... I have the feeling that the only way a sequel would get made is if Ridley Scott financed it. No studio in their right mind would touch it, as is often the case with the most worthwhile movies.

-Viz

Re:I've got a better idea

[elrous0]

Of course, it's probably best known for its visual style and cyberpunk setting. But, for me, the movie's underlying question of "What truly makes someone a human?" is the most interesting part. The Roy Batty character seems at first to be just the traditional bad guy. But, by the end, you come to realize that his ultimate goal is simply to assert his own humanity. He and his group are just trying to claim the things that humans take for granted (a long life, freedom, etc.) because they feel that they deserve them. That's a pretty powerful character arc.

Re:I've got a better idea

[khellendros1984]

I like it for a few reasons. One is its vision for the future. It looks grungy and plausible..."lived in". Then there's the cognitive dissonance in Ford's character, i.e. that he both recognizes the replicants as thinking, intelligent beings, but still feels that he has to take them out. And when he finds out what the girl is, as well....I guess I like seeing how people (even fictional characters) deal with moral ambiguity.

Re:I've got a better idea

[caitsith01]

T3 followed an OK movie, T2

Bzzzzt... movie snob alert.

T2 was an action movie. But it was a GREAT action movie, one of the best ever. It may not be an 'intelligent' as Blade Runner (the latter of which is one of my favourite movies of all time) but in terms of its genre it was largely unsurpassed until at least The Matrix.

Otherwise I agree with your post 100%. Although that To Kill a Mockingbird sequel sounds great, can I suggest Vin Diesel for the role of Atticus? I also have a title lined up for you: "2: Killa Mockingbird".

Sure, why not?

[Psmylie]

"Travis Wright, one of the writers behind Eagle Eye, has been working on a sequel to Ridley Scott's Sci-Fi classic Blade Runner."

Go ahead. I write fanfics, too.

Re:Sure, why not?

[pisto_grih]

You seem to be having trouble righting with your computer, why not donate it to Travis?

Super Suck

[Irish_Samurai]

Without a Phillip K. Dick story to bastardize, this script could go into turbo-shitty land really fast.

Net a sequel?

[Seakip18]

I don't understand...are they fighting in an arena? Are they fishing for sequels? I'm confused. Unless Taco didn't have the 20 seconds to double check the headline for a typo.

Re:Net a sequel?

[kalirion]

They're obviously going for the ultimate cyberpunk by merging it with a Neuromancer sequel.

Highlander

[whisper_jeff]

Please take a lesson from Highlander: there can be only one.

Re:Highlander

[estarriol]

The TV series (after 1.5 seasons) was very far from shitty - it was better than anything bar the first 70 minutes or so of the only Highlander film. In other words, the TV series is really damn good.

Re:Hold still please...

[elrous0]

Let me tell you about my mother.

Heinlein, please?

[R2.0]

Since Scott has a track record of putting out decent science fiction cinema, could we PLEASE get him to do some Heinlein? Or, if that's not "percussive" enough, some Niven-Pournelle? A shortened version of A Mote in God's Eye should have enough bang-bang to keep the kiddies happy, and cool aliens that turn from "advanced peaceful society" to "Freakish monster hoards" by the end.

Ignore it if you don't want to watch it.

[onion2k]

I don't get the whole "this sequel is terrible, it shouldn't have been made!" thing. You don't have to watch it. The fact it's been made doesn't affect the original in any way whatsoever. Chill out.

Besides, there's an outside chance it could be really good. The Bladerunner idea is a great starting point.

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it.

[ubrgeek]

I disagree. For folks that have a passion about a world created by a movie, then a crappy sequel taints that world. For some of the examples that have been posted, having a sequel to Highlander (even with the esteemed Mario Van Peeples *ugh*) ruined the story by shredding the conclusion of the first. "There can be only one, except for this other guy, so make that two. Yeah, only two. Unless we jump to the future, if that's cool?" The fourth Indiana Jones was so terrible, I refuse to accept the stories as anything more than a trillogy. Some movies are as good as they are because of how they end. A sequel - in the case of a story that wasn't designed to be multiple episodes (see "Rings, Lord of the") seems to eliminate the important element of Conclusion that completes the first movie. Exactly what would a sequel to Close Encounters of the Third Kind bring us?

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it.

[neoform]

I think it's more about soiling the memory of something good.

It's kinda like when you meet a hot girl, you hit it off, then your friend tells you she has a penis.

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it.

[Lumpy]

dude... did you even watch Doom, how about Judge Dredd?

People committed suicide in the theaters over how bad those movies were.

Riots in the streets for 12 days, total dead was 15,000 opening weekend alone.

Do you really want that shitty of a movie to happen again?

DO YOU?!!?!?!

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it.

[Rary]

For folks that have a passion about a world created by a movie, then a crappy sequel taints that world.

Which takes us right back to the GP's original point: "You don't have to watch it."

The Highlander sequels did nothing to ruin the original classic for me, because I never saw them, and never will.

So, here's my advice. When/If the movie comes out, wait until everyone else has seen it so you can get some reviews, then decide whether or not you will go see it based on those reviews. If everyone says it sucks and "taints the world" of the original, then stay away from the theatre.

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it.

[Rary]

You can't KNOW that it'll be awful until you see it (though you can have a pretty good gut feeling).

Then you have no one to blame but yourself for not listening to your gut.

Honestly, if you're so enamoured with a movie that another movie can impact your enjoyment of that first movie, then don't take the chance.

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it.

[xant]

There are only two Indiana Jones movies. What is this "Temple" people keep mentioning?

Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it.

[pyro_peter_911]

It's kinda like when you meet a hot girl, you hit it off, then your friend tells you she has a penis.

It was a Rocky Horror Picture Show party. I was appropriately dressed and you were seriously drunk.

Peter

I Don't Even Care Anymore

[eldavojohn]

Please No, Net a Blade Runner Sequel

Who cares at this point, really?

Disclaimers: I'm not an economist, I love Philip K. Dick & I could care less for Blade Runner the movie.

I see it as there being finite number of movies Hollywood has the money to make each year. I'd rather see a Blade Runner Sequel than the fourth or fifth Austin Powers movie (can you believe that Myers is on contract to make two more?) so why not? I mean, like the article says, the novel is out there, it's not like if they transform that story into a movie or make their own script it's going to affect my perception of the original Blade Runner or Philip K. Dick novel. What the article fails to mention is there are actually four Blade Runner novels ( Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night (1996), Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon (2000)). Go ahead, turn them all into movies, you know the fans will reward you for it with piles of cash. It's better than Legally Blonde: Supreme Court Captain!

I think there have been other movies based on this novel--what of Spielberg's AI? Was that not a butchered version of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? also? I don't see this as quite cut and dried as CmdrTaco ("don't-ruin-perfect?"--I would hardly call any of this material perfect). I mean, I bitch and moan about movies like Snakes on a Plane & The Transporter 8 as I read great novels by great sci-fi writers like Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle (which, although controversial, I opine would make a fine movie)--why not use these great stories that are already out there to allow good directors to create (potentially) great films?

I like to watch original movies from Warner Independent Pictures and Fox Searchlight Pictures but the public and I seem to disagree about where the money in Hollywood should be spent so why do I care that they rehash old crap and dilute brand names when that's how the market rewards them? Can you be critical of them making money? Is that not why they're in that business? Whore yourselves out for all I care, I'm not going to watch it unless there's a Rifftrax for it.

And let's not forget that there are good examples of this actually working out there like The Shining, The Shawshank Redemption, The Lord of the Rings, even Batman Begins & The Dark Knight grossly overshadow Batman Forever & Batman & Robin.

So I ask you, why do you care? You aren't forced to see the movie and if you do, it's going to give you something you love and cherish the most: something to bitch vindictively about.

Re:I Don't Even Care Anymore

[PotatoFarmer]

I think there have been other movies based on this novel--what of Spielberg's AI? Was that not a butchered version of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? also?

AI was based on a Brian Aldiss story - Super-Toys Last All Summer Long

Already done.

[Stone Rhino]

It was already done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_(film)

It was written by David Peoples, who co-wrote the script for Blade Runner. By his own admission, he considers Soldier to be a "sidequel"/spiritual successor to Blade Runner.[1] It also obliquely references various elements of stories written by Philip K. Dick (who wrote the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, on which Blade Runner is based), or film adaptations thereof.

Re:Are you sure ?

[elrous0]

Bah, don't worry. I'm sure Keanu will do a fine job as Decker.

What about an EMS recombination?

[scourfish]

We've already tried it - ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkalating agent and potent script treatment; it created a plothole so lethal the script was dead before it even left the table.

Don't panic!

[Hognoxious]

Calm down, everybody. There's no evidence that George Lucas will be involved.

there ARE authorized sequel books though

[Oo.et.oO]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Human

Re:there ARE authorized sequel books though

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Human

Except that wasn't "authorized" by Dick. The original story was complete as written, at least as much as you can call any Dick story 'complete'. The whole point of many of his stories is that you DON'T know for sure.

As for the idea of making a movie from "Brave New World", it can't be done without ruining the story, or being classified as Child Porn.
Exactly how do they plan on filming the "little children engaged in their erotic games" ?

Donning the old Zen-Master stuff

[Opportunist]

To disperse some wisdom.

You see, grasshopper, story is like tea leaves. When you have good tea leaves, you will have good tea. You take tea leaves, you take hot water, and you have good tea. You have wonderful tea. You savour tea, and you like tea so much that you think, you want more tea. So you take the leaves out of the water and save them, then you bring hot water again and you pour it over the tea leaves. But alas, no good tea. It tastes stale and bland. The flavor all gone.

If you want another cup of tea, you have to find new tea leaves. Using the old one will only give you bland, tasteless and generally worthless tea.

Re:Where can I get the VO DVD?

[Urban Garlic]

Not sure if you need to do this to get it, but if you get the "Blade Runner Five-disk Ultimate Collector's Edition" (yes, that's really what it's called, and yes, I have it), it includes the original US theatrical release, with the voice-over.

I was never sure about the voice-over, myself. I saw that version first, in theatres, back in the day, and I thought the voice-over was annoying, a bit too "Magnum P.I.", clubbing me with context. When I saw the "director's cut" later on, I liked it better, but of course, I had already seen the first one, so I knew the context. It's easy to imagine that if you see the "director's cut" first, it'd be pretty confusing.

I do think there needs to be less voice-over, particularly towards the end. By that time, the context is established, and the awesome visuals really do work better on their own.

IMHO, obviously.

Kurt Russel -- Soldier

[mlwmohawk]

The movie Soldier is an amazing movie. Not that it is perfect, by any means, but Kurt Russel has about 12 spoken lines, but carries the whole movie by body language and facial expressions.

I am a closet Kurt Russel fan, and wish, in a better world, he got better parts. His acting is cartoonish because he gets cartoonish parts.

Similarly, I was joking with my son a few weeks ago about the movie "Tropic Thunder" and Robert Downey Jr. It is a awesome that Robert Downey has such a screwed up personal life, it means his talent and ability are relegated to "fun" movies like "Iron Man" and "Tropic Thunder" as opposed to boring movies like "Chocolat," "Cider House Rules," or "The Ice Storm." :-)

I'm not worried: I just don't give a fuck.

[blind biker]

I have given up hope to see any worthwhile SF movie, in this century. After the 70's, they have been progressively dumbed down. One of my favourite SF movies was "The Andromeda strain", from 1970 (IIRC, won't bother checking with IMDB). It was good, hard-ish SF without unnecessary drama and NO brainfarts. Then they decided to remake it as a two-part mini series last year, and obviously, they HAD TO dumb it down. Because we all know that people today are dumber than they were 30+ years ago... right? I don't hope to see such underrated gems as was "Logan's run", "Demon seed", "2001: A space odyssey" etc.

I blame the "Star Wars" saga for this. Oh, I can hear a rumble, as if a billion slashdotters rose up in horror (I have some karma to burn), but that's what I believe: "Star Wars" had little to do with SF - it should be called a costume western - and it didn't make your neurons work. But it was grand, it had interesting special effects. In brief, it was entertaining without taxing your brain. Just like any James Bond movie does. And the producers of Star Wars made gobs of money, and so, that became the blueprint for future SF movies - make them dumb and entertaining.

So today we only have pseudo-SF movies, like "Minority Report", "Battlestar Galactica" and so forth (boy, am I going to be modded down today!) but whenever someone tries to make a movie even slightly intellectually challenging, like "A.I." he/she gets vilified and suffers dismal box-office failure.

So, fuck the movie industry and fuck the dumb audience. I have no hope for a good SF movie anymore. I'll stick to books - Stephen Baxter and others are still churning good, brain-stimulating hard-SF worth my time.

Re:I'm not worried: I just don't give a fuck.

[plasmacutter]

but A.I. did suck.

The ending was a massive digression and the premise, while dark, was not brought to the levels of, say, elfen lied, which did a much better job of portraying a dark, dissociated view of human corruption.

Re:I'm not worried: I just don't give a fuck.

[NitroWolf]

So today we only have pseudo-SF movies, like "Minority Report", "Battlestar Galactica" and so forth (boy, am I going to be modded down today!) but whenever someone tries to make a movie even slightly intellectually challenging, like "A.I." he/she gets vilified and suffers dismal box-office failure.

Did you just seriously say AI was intellectually challenging? There was nothing "intellectually challenging" about AI. It was simply the worst SF movie ever made, and that's saying a lot. In fact, it was SF in name only - you talk about costume western that is Star Wars (and I don't necessarily disagree) - AI is nothing more than fluffy drama tear jerker that tried WAYYY too hard with ridiculously unbelievable characters, plot holes from here to the moon and horrible ... absolutely HORRIBLE acting. There was absolutely NOTHING redeeming about AI, and the fact that you hold it up as something to be admired (intellectually challenging? Seriously?) leads me to believe you have absolutely no idea what good SF is. Your credibility in that department is pretty much shot.

Even more reboots

[Enderandrew]

Nightmare on Elm Street
Karate Kid
Candyman
GI Joe
Pink Panther
Street Fighter (not that there was much of a franchise to begin with)
Tron (this project has waffled between reboot and sequel, but is now being called Tr2n)
Terminator Salvation (technically a sequel, but one that isn't recognizing T3 as canon, and recast everyone to start a new franchise)
Land of the Lost
Fame
The Stepfather
Astro Boy
Sherlock Holmes
Hellraiser
Superman
Catwoman (a failed reboot, but a reboot none the less)

Sadly, I'm probably forgetting more reboots.

Is Manhattan in the house?

[Tetsujin]

And that's why business sucks. Everything: including science, law, medicine, art, politics, education, takes a back seat to money-making.

Except, of course, for super disco breakin'.

Where's Don LaFontaine when you need him?

[Tetsujin]

Yep, a Heinlein movie would be great! They should make Stranger in a Strange Land. The orgies would be epic!

In a world alien to man...
"We've lost contact with the Envoy!"
The child of human explorers...
(voice distorted by radio)"Repeat, we have found a survivor!"
Is an alien.
"Damnit, man, you don't understand! He - is - a - Martian!"

(cue wild drum beat, footage of Mike jumping around on Martian rocks like an ape through the trees - hovercars diving through clouds - Jill punching out a guard in Bethesda)

Douglas: That young man's claim to Mars will be MINE!
Jubal: THAT YOUNG MAN IS UNDER MY PROTECTION!

(beat... black screen, fade in)

Berquist: You're coming with me...

(beat... black screen, fade in)

Mike (snarling): I... GROK... WRONGNESS!

Stranger In A Strange Land... Rated R.

Uwe Boll

[dazedNconfuzed]

Depends on how many million I made off that movie.

Uwe? is that you?