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.
When will they get M Night Shyamalan to make Citizen Kane 2?
ralphbarbagallo.com
With the director of "GI Jane" and "Prometheus" how could it fail?
Except by making a gratuitous sequel (or reboot) of a great movie, they usually manage to offend the fans of the original, plus since they seldom "get" what the appeal of the original is, they usually don't make a better sequel - thus turning off the younger fans that might have adopted the new version.
And of course, since the redo is big budget, they have to run it through the hands of a few writers to be sure its got the seal of approval that the backers want, and in the process anything good or quirky is ironed out and the script conforms to the cliches that worked in the past based on market research and analysis. Usually this means more Splosions.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
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.
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.
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.