Slashdot Mirror
Green Lantern Writer To Pen Blade Runner Sequel
First time accepted submitter MovieEnthusiast writes "Alcon Entertainment, the production company that own the rights to Blade Runner, have announced that the Blade Runner sequel will be re-written by Michael Green (The Green Lantern) and hinted at other possible Blade Runner spin-offs. From the press release: 'Writer Michael Green is in negotiations to do a rewrite of Alcon Entertainment's "Blade Runner" sequel penned by Hampton Fancher ("Blade Runner," "The Minus Man," "The Mighty Quinn") and to be directed by Ridley Scott. Fancher's original story/screenplay is set some years after the first film concluded.
Alcon co-founders and co-Chief Executive Officers Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove will produce with Bud Yorkin and Cynthia Sikes Yorkin, along with Ridley Scott. Frank Giustra and Tim Gamble, CEO's of Thunderbird Films, will serve as executive producers.
Green recently completed rewrites on "Robopocalypse" and Warners Bros "Gods and Kings."'"
It will only be good if they make it darker and edgier.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Let me guess, lots more action and 'plosions?
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Just leave them alone, please.
If there's a movie that doesn't need a sequel, it's Blade Runner.
Please Hollywood - find a new idea.
The only person that could write a sequel died in 1982. This will automatically be a steaming pile of shit.
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
You mean someone didn't ban him for life from being involved with writing anything EVER again after the green lantern?
Why not a reboot?
So say we all
Green Lantern was not exactly a great movie, Blade Runner was. Ignoring how faithful the original was to the source material, the sequel has to be very faithful to the original movie to ensure good story continuity. Someone that would impress me would be Peter Jackson or Del Toro. For that matter, Kevin Smith would impress me if he were attached to the project. Or William Goldman, a master at re-writes.
Though it's entirely possible that I'm turning in to a curmudgeon and should stick to my video collection and watch 20+ year old movies only, I thought Star Trek Into Darkness was kinda sucky and hold little hope in my heart for JJ's Star Wars movies.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Firstly, Blade Runner doesn't need a sequel. Or a prequel. Or a re-imagining. It was solid by itself. Let it be.
Secondly, as much of a fan as I am of the Green Lantern comics... and as someone who thought the move was "alright" I would rather they went with someone else for the screenplay.
He also wrote the series "Kings" which was fantastic, but the rest of his WRITING resume is "meh"
So if you're going to do something like this... get someone GREAT. Get someone AWESOME. Don't get someone without a lot of hits on his writing resume.
How many movies these days aren't a sequel to a reboot to a prequel of something that's been made before? Hollywood can't pass up the quick fix of a "built in audience". Too bad that all too often they don't show up.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
When will they get M Night Shyamalan to make Citizen Kane 2?
ralphbarbagallo.com
Part of the uniqueness of Blade Runner was the soundtrack. There are just so many ways this sequel can go wrong. But I suppose I don't have to watch it if they fail.
With the director of "GI Jane" and "Prometheus" how could it fail?
The ONLY, and I mean ONLY person to have ever done a sequel to a Ridley Scott film "right" was James Cameron. I know he's not well liked in Slashdot circles, but even Ridley can't do his own films justice, as we've seen with Prometheus.
In fact, when I first heard they were doing an Alien sequel when I was in college, I was aghast, as I am now over this Blade Runner sequel... But "aliens" was a fine shoot-em-up adventure film, and is still watchable even today. "Game over man" and "nuke 'em from orbit" are quotes used to this day.
There's simply NO WAY to make a Blade Runner sequel and do it right -- you might as well be talking about sequels to Casablanca and Citizen Kane. You don't mess with a classic. That terrible Planet of the Apes reboot with Marky Mark should have showed everyone that you just don't mess with a classic.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I have a question – why would answering that question make a good movie?
Personally, I like the ambiguity. It still makes for an interesting conversation after all of these years – Unlike Han’s “Who shot first” question? My guess is that it would detract from the original – not add. Personally, I think that the should leave it like the original Matrix movie – No reason to do another one, even if the fans demand a sequel.
Granted, I saw it in the theater when it came out, and I was expecting more of a Star Wars thing, due to the time in history and at that time it was about all I'd ever seen Harrison Ford in)...so, I was confused and kinda disappointed, and possibly that has carried on in some small way into adulthood. While I've seen the movie as an adult, I've not seen it in a couple decades at least.
Perhaps I need to watch it again. I've heard there are director and other cuts that might make it a bit better movie...not sure which version is the definitive to watch.
But anyway, even with that...I just never saw it as that great of a movie, not that breakthrough...just seemed dull honestly.
What am I missing?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
To Kill a Mockingbird 2
"If Atticus Finch can't get justice in the court room...
(Queue sound effects: "Screeech.....KABOOM...."ATTICUS!!!!") ...he'll get it on the street!"
You were unlucky enough to see it at the wrong time of your life, with the wrong expectations. It might not be fixable.
It'll be diminished now because that vision of the dark futuristic city, mixing Japan-inspired neon with rain and grime, has been done to death. Also it played to our fears and anticipations in the 80s.
I think it's a great film though, which reads differently depending on your perspective. At one stage, I watched it and saw it as a meditation on fate, the passing of time and the nature of memories. That's explicit in Rutger Hauer's monologues, but also in other aspects of the film.
Then I watched it again more recently, and read it in a completely different way.
That's evidence of depth.
You have to be kidding! It was the lamest Sci-Fi flick of recent memory and was worse than "Fly me to the moon."
If you want to know how bad a movie is, track how long it takes to go from theater to DVD/Blue-Ray. Green Lantern went out on disc in 4 months. People are still buying the original "Blade Runner" and I doubt that anybody will remember "The Green Lantern" in five years.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
that vision of the dark futuristic city, mixing Japan-inspired neon with rain and grime, has been done to death.
The term you're looking for is Tech-noir.
At one stage, I watched it and saw it as a meditation on fate, the passing of time and the nature of memories
Like most of Dick's stories, it's a meditation on reality. What is real, what is not, how do you tell when all your evidence is subjective, and most importantly... does it actually matter?
As for which version of the movie is better, it's mostly a matter of taste. One has the voice-over narrative, which gives the movie a feeling reminiscent of the old "gum-shoe" detective movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood and helps move things along. The other does not, which gives it more of a drawn-out, brooding feeling... this is also the version with the "unicorn dream" which lends support to the idea that Deckard is also a Replicant.
As for the sequel, it's a shit movie. I can say that without it even being made or written. Why? Because the story has no sequel, that's part of the damn point of the thing. The original was about the characters, not the World. Dick really was a master at writing individual stories, he didn't write series and his stories are self-contained. Any time the plot contains an "open end" it's meant to be that way, and adding sequels or tying up "loose ends" actually detracts from the story.
I'm afraid that any attempt at a sequel or re-make will be just as much of a cluster-fuck as what they did to Total Recall.
> The term you're looking for is Tech-noir.
I think the term we're looking for is simply cyberpunk. "Japan-inspired neon with rain and grime" is also a pretty good description of William Gibson's books.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.