back to article Blade Runner sequel might actually be good. Harrison Ford is in it

Harrison Ford will star in the much-anticipated sequel to Blade Runner, director Ridley Scott has confirmed. However, Scott will not direct the follow-up to this iconic film, even though he worked with the original movie's screenwriter, Hampton Fancher, to develop its script. Ford has become something of a cinematic Lazarus …

Anonymous Coward

It's going to be so utterly shit.

33
13
Happy

Well, going in with low expectations is the surest way to avoid disappointment. You seem to have that covered!

20
0

There is that occasional anomaly of doing the sequel right, but oh so rare :(

18
0

"Well, going in with low expectations is the surest way to avoid disappointment."

That's so true. I went into the first Hobbit film expecting it to be awful and, despite the fact that it wasn't exactly brilliant, I came away delighted because it had exceeded my expectations. Unfortunately, because of this, I went into the second film feeling faintly optimistic and came out disappointed. On reflection, it wasn't a bad film. Probably on a par with the first, but my expectations were so much higher I was thoroughly fed up. Thankfully I'm back to expecting No. 3 to be a massive pile poo. "Massive" being the operative term. How can he make three 2.5+ hour films out of a single, fairly short book? Even if the film is good enough to keep the rest of me awake, my backside will surely be asleep well before the end.

14
0
Anonymous Coward

Even though the two follow up books weren't by PKD I'm fairly sure they will be better than the story than will be knocked up for this film.

I'm surprised JJ Abrams isn't doing it.

5
2
Anonymous Coward

When a follow up film appears a considerable time after the first film the chances of success seem slimmer.

4
0
Silver badge
Holmes

I wonder if it will settle the decades-old Blade Runner riddle - is Deckard a replicant?

4
0
Terminator

> is Deckard a replicant?

Yes.

19
0
Anonymous Coward

Surely Harrison Ford is now too old to play a character with an engineered short life-span?

That's assuming that Ford even plays the same character; they could cop-out by having him ambiguously play a guy who might be Deckard or might be the guy who's DNA was used to create Deckard or something like that.

4
0

Who says Replicants can't age?

Maybe they can go through an ageing stage, even if its massively accelerated

1
0

Who says Deckard is subject to the same rules of the other replicants? Deckard doesn't even know it's a replicant, perhaps the termination wasn't engineered in; or maybe the one we see is simply one of many Deckards.

1
0

Surely Harrison Ford is now too old to play a character with an engineered short life-span?

Did he have a short lifespan?

Rachael didn't.

Also all the characters with short life spans had super strength. Deckard certainly didn't and Rachael didn't display it.

6
0
Silver badge

Re: Surely Harrison Ford is now too old to play a character with an engineered short life-span?

"Did he have a short lifespan?

Rachael didn't."

"Too bad she won't live...but then again, who does?"

22
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Unhappy

@AC "Even though the two follow up books weren't by PKD

"...I'm fairly sure they will be better than the story than will be knocked up for this film."

I tried reading "Blade Runner 2" by KW Jeter, which tried to square the circle between the original PKD book and the film and failed utterly.

If that is better than this film, stay *well* clear!!!

1
0

@Bob Vistakin

Ridley Scott said a couple of years ago that he thought Deckard was a replicant.

0
0

@Jess - Re: "Surely Harrison Ford is now too old...

"...to play a character with an engineered short life-span?"

> Did he have a short lifespan?

> Rachael didn't.

Yes she did, in all versions of the film which didn't have the Happy Ending forcibly bolted onto the end of the film by the Studio who thought the original ending was too bleak (probably according to their Focus Groups...)

0
0

The 3hr extended versions are sooo much better .. those extra minutes make the films much better (apart from the singing dwarfs in the first one which really is too much) and actually makes the second one flow better and follows the book more closely.

However, the third one is going to be a stretch.

0
0
Silver badge

I don't remember gold-surfing dwarfs and a giant statue of Thorin's ego in the book...

1
0
Silver badge

Funnily enough...

In one of the 'sequel' books (the first, I think, it's been sooo long since I read them), the template for the Roy Baty replicant 'breaks' the Blade Runner who was shot at the start out of hospital for a new heart and lungs and dispathcing him on some mission.

I seem to remeber quite enjoying the 'sequel'* books, although they were quite dark, many of the characters had lost hope, however I had just finished reading the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant at the time, so the books would appear rather upbeat after those.

* Sequel to the movie, not the PKD original, which bears about as much resemblance as does Pierre Boules Monkey Planet does to Planet of the Apes the movie.

I still don't understand the concept that it 'migh't be good 'cause Harrison Ford 'might' be in it. Story first, then 'good actors, good director then (finally) special effects. Hollywood seems to think Special effects are first and the story can just be made up as they go along.

1
0
Silver badge

That's the big reveal at the end.

The replicants are all open source so it doesn't matter if the Tyrrel corporation "end of life's" them - people can just fork the project and keep the old ones running.

9
1

As I recollect, the sequal book was pretty disappointing, too. But still, there wasn't much of the original book in the film, so I don't suppose ther'll be much of the original sequence in the second film, either.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Surely Harrison Ford is now too old to play a character with an engineered short life-span?

I took that to be a bit of "messing with his head" .... there was nothing in the statement that implied the her death was imminent

0
1

Especially since Harrison Ford was in the new Indiana Jones film and that was utter shit - and Enders Game... And Ridley Scott was happy enough to direct Damon Lindelof's rewrite of Prometheus, and that was ... just bad writing - (the 3D visuals and lush cinematics at the Imax were great tho).

1
0

Re: @AC "Even though the two follow up books weren't by PKD

PKD lived in his own very weird world. I find most of his novels painful to read, his short stories work better for me. DADES was one of the few that wasn't painful for me. I enjoyed it all except for the end, but the end was proper and supposed to be a gotcha moment.

All of which is just a lead up to saying:

I don't see how anyone can inhabit PKD's weird world for long enough to write something that meshes with what he's done. Hell, they couldn't even stick with the original ending in the first movie adaptation of his book. (Which actually made it quite clear Deckard wasn't a replicant.)

1
1

Re: Surely Harrison Ford is now too old to play a character with an engineered short life-span?

IIRC that was Gaff suggesting to Deckard that Rachel would be caught and terminated by someone, not that she would die of natural causes.

1
0

Re: Surely Harrison Ford is now too old to play a character with an engineered short life-span?

"The light that burns twice as bright burns twice as fast and you have burned so very, very brightly Roy."

Or similar, memory not what it was

So you could argue as Deck was human normal, he gets human normal lifespan, Rach as well.

0
0

Re: @Jess - "Surely Harrison Ford is now too old...

I've seen the non happy ending one. I would say your summing up is not as intended.

The attitude seemed to be "we don't how long we'll have together, but then nobody else knows that anyway, human or no".

I thought that was sort of the point.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Funnily enough...

I'd rather have my cock and balls crushed in a vice than read the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. The abject pain that would be bestowed on me by the vice would be a lot less than reading about Thomas Covenant..

1
0
T J

After I got out from under the spell of Prometheus, and realised it was a total piece of excrement, I wanted to leave some of my own excrement in a suitable vessel - so that the director would get to appreciate it, up close and personal, you understand. They NEED to think of these audience facilities!

0
0
T J

Deckard's not subject to those rules - at least according to K W Jetter.

0
0
T J

Re: Funnily enough...

Yes! I liked that bit too - where the ORIGINAL Roy Batty turns up, and he's a complete special-ops nutcase. And he HATES the replicant version of himself that spared Deckard, regarding it as a cheap copy. The scene in the book where he breaks Holden out of hospital really does deserve to be filmed, though it would probably be the only good bit of the film.

As a general rule, K W Jetter sucks pus in hell. He's regarded as a contemporary/disciple of Philip K Dick but I can never work out why - Dick's stuff is genius, Jetter's is utter shit.

0
0
Silver badge
Devil

How can he make three 2.5+ hour films out of a single, fairly short book?

Normally I'm quite up there with you on this one, but just to play the devil's advocate - Spike Jonze did make an entire feature film out of a ten sentences long book with "Where the wild things are", and it's completely awesome... ;)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Funnily enough...

Fiction does tend to be made up as you go along, unless of course your sci fi has some time travelling in it.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

The new story line

This time he will be a caught replicant working in an off world colony. And he will try to escape to Earth together with Sean Young who also work off world.

0
0

-1 Geek Point

Hans Solo?

22
0

Re: -1 Geek Point

Ya! Der Kapitän der Millennium Falcon!! And best mates with Chewybacon.

30
0

Re: -1 Geek Point

That'll be the Scandinavian space smugger played by Harry von-Fjord.

13
0
Silver badge
Coat

Re: -1 Geek Point

That would make it the Millenium U-Boot.

4
0
Silver badge
Coat

Re: -1 Geek Point

Or it could be 'Hands-solo' the famous onanist.

4
0
Thumb Up

Re: -1 Geek Point

Reminds me of Decwars!

1
0
Coat

Re: -1 Geek Point

"Or it could be 'Hands-solo' the famous onanist."

Now let's blow this thing and go home.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: -1 Geek Point

Ja, ja, ze schwartz is strong with this one...

0
0

"Always leave them wanting more"

Atrributed to P T Barnum

"Bladerunner - the director's cut" is one of the few times where more is more. Leave it alone.

Nerd point: Although I haven't put it in the DVD player to check, I'm fairly sure it opened the question at the end of whether he was a replicant (in which case the sequel suffers from an obvious flaw)

Anyway, as someone has already posted it will be shite. I won't be going.

However, as also attributed to P T Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute"

12
1

Re: "Always leave them wanting more"

If the "obvious flaw" is that the replicants have a limited lifespan then this isn't so much of a problem. It is left unsaid in the film (both versions) whether or not Rachael had a shorter than normal lifespan and she certainly didn't seem to be burning oh so bright. If Decker is a replicant (the most likely conclusion, as if he wasn't, he would have gone off world like everyone else who could) then it seems he also didn't have the short but bright life.

1
0

Re: "Always leave them wanting more"

I thought that was the whole point that Rachel was a new model that had a normal human lifespan so Deckard could fall in love with her without the 'Highlander' syndrome and her implanted memories cushioned her from insanity..

from Wiki

The theatrical cut's voice-over ending said that as an experimental replicant Rachael didn't have the pre-determined four-year lifespan, but the Director's Cut left that ambiguous.

4
0
Silver badge
Holmes

Re: "Always leave them wanting more"

"Bladerunner - the director's cut" is one of the few times where more is more. Leave it alone.

Obviously you haven't found the Final Cut version yet. That's really the ultimate version (so far...)

If there's going to be a sequel I'm not expecting it to be as great as Blade Runner. I cannot see that being possible - it may still be a great film though. For instance I did like the much maligned Prometheus even though many Alien fans were quite upset because it lacked space marines and proper Aliens and didn't have the gritty feeling of the predecessors.

There are, however, plenty of Scifi sequels that are rather excellent and _sometimes_ greatly surpassing the originals: Mad Max 2, Terminator 2, Aliens, Wrath of Khan, Empire Strikes Back.

Of course, all those films had sequels (and prequels) that were very bad.

7
5

Re: plenty of Scifi sequels that are rather excellent...Terminator 2

I have to disagree but only with the benefit of having seen it again recently

When I first saw Terminator 2 I was blown away (mainly by the FX, tbh) and thought it a worthy successor to the first movie.

Having recently watched both films again, I have completely changed my mind:

Terminator - stands up well and is still a very good film.

Terminator 2 - full of plot holes and not a good film at all.

I'd go along with the others on your list though.

4
0

Re: "Always leave them wanting more"

The movie does. The book doesn't. At least not the one PKD wrote as opposed to the one what's-his-name wrote as an adaption from the movie. The movie should have played with the same themes PKD does in the book. In some ways it is almost a better medium for it. But the theme is too dark to attract the kind of attendance Hollywood looks for in a movie.

0
0

Re: "Always leave them wanting more"

I thought that was the whole point that Rachel was a new model that had a normal human lifespan so Deckard could fall in love with her without the 'Highlander' syndrome and her implanted memories cushioned her from insanity..

See, this is why I HATE the movie. That was not the whole point. The whole point was to question what is the nature of being human. Deckard was human but might have failed the test he applied to a subject to determine if it was a replicant. Rachel was a replicant, but right up until she blew Deckard's brains out, seemed more human the he was. No she was not a new model. She was an illegal production. One with the safety of the limited lifespan removed.

0
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017