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

[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

[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

[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.)

Highlander

[whisper_jeff]

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

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.

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: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.

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.