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 …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's going to be so utterly shit.

    1. tony72
      Happy

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

      1. Bassey

        "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.

        1. Synonymous Howard

          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.

          1. Graham Dawson

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

        2. DropBear 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... ;)

      2. 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!

    2. Steve Gill

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

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

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

    3. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Graham Marsden
        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. Tom 13

          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.)

    4. Bob Vistakin
      Holmes

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

      1. The BigYin
        Terminator

        > is Deckard a replicant?

        Yes.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          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.

          1. Martin Marv

            Who says Replicants can't age?

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

          2. The BigYin

            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. T J

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

          3. Jess

            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.

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon 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?"

              1. IsJustabloke 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

              2. Gezza

                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.

            2. Graham Marsden

              @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...)

              1. Indolent Wretch

                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.

            3. Indolent Wretch

              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.

          4. Teiwaz 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. Anonymous Coward
              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..

            2. 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.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              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.

          5. Yet Another Anonymous coward 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.

      2. Graham Marsden

        @Bob Vistakin

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

    5. This post has been deleted by its author

    6. G R Goslin

      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.

    7. Tony Paulazzo

      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).

  2. Anonymous Coward
    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.

  3. Clockworkseer

    -1 Geek Point

    Hans Solo?

    1. NellyD

      Re: -1 Geek Point

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

    2. NP-HARD

      Re: -1 Geek Point

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

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: -1 Geek Point

        That would make it the Millenium U-Boot.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: -1 Geek Point

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

          1. fearnothing
            Coat

            Re: -1 Geek Point

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

            Now let's blow this thing and go home.

            1. DropBear Silver badge

              Re: -1 Geek Point

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

        2. ravenviz Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: -1 Geek Point

          Reminds me of Decwars!

  4. gerryg

    "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"

    1. Julz

      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. Why Not?

        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.

        1. Tom 13

          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.

          1. Felix Krull

            Re: "Always leave them wanting more"

            Deckard was human but might have failed the test he applied to a subject to determine if it was a replicant.

            Deckard was a replicant.

            The key is the origami-guy, who always seem to know what Deckard is thinking, making little origamis to illustrate it. At the end, when Deckard and Rachel are fleeing, Deckard finds an origami unicorn outside his apartment, just like the one he dreams about when slumped over the piano. This mirrors the scene where Deckard tells Rachel about her childhood 'memories'. Deckards memories are implants, that's how origami-guy knows about his dreams.

            And no, memory implants don't grant longer lifespan. At least one of the rogue replicants had memory implants too. You could even argue that Roy's memories of space battles were implants too, fit for a soldier droid.

    2. Sandtitz 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.

      1. AbelSoul

        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.

      2. proud2bgrumpy

        Re: "Always leave them wanting more"

        Yep - except that Alien and Aliens are completely different films - Alien is a horror movie, Aliens is an action movie. Of the two, I think the first has a slight edge, but both stand up well.

    3. Tom 13

      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.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Bleu

        Re: "Always leave them wanting more"

        There was no novel adapted from the movie. It was just the PKD novel with the title Bladerunner, a shot looking like Harrison Ford in the movie, and the subtitle 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'.

        It was part of the contract conditions. PKD wrote about Bladerunner, the pieces I've read were 'screw this, just a lot of explosions and nothing to do with my vision' and later, not long before his death, but before the theatrical release, a piece that still recognised the departure from the source material, but expressed enjoyment for the film.

        If you are really interested, there is (or was) also an early version of the screenplay on pdf floating about, it is well worth reading. I still have a copy somewhere. Very different from the film as it was released, and quite interesting.

    4. wayward4now

      Re: "Always leave them wanting more"

      Decker will be found with his brains transplanted into a Jar Jar Binks form. He shits an assortment of spotted and striped multicolor Easter eggs when he gets excited, as he pulls out that blaster to pop a replicant. So, it's not a question anymore if he is human or replicant, it's will he become the True Messiah and learn to wear tennis shoes on those cartoon feet??

  5. Ralph B

    How Possible?

    If Deckard and Rachel were both replicants then they shouldn't have survived more than the 3-or-so years that Tyrell's design allowed. So, how could something as crusty as Ford possibly still be around. (It would be ungentlemanly to speculate on Ms.Young's current appearance.)

    1. Hairy Spod

      Re: How Possible?

      A) he might have been one of the protype models that didnt have the safeguard built in and didnt go insane

      B) he might not have been a replicant

      1. Matthew 17

        Re: How Possible?

        No, as

        A) - That was only relevant to the original studio release after Scott was sacked from the director's chair, the studio added the daft voice over and happy ending. There were no such prototypes in the Director's/Final Cuts of the film.

        B) - No as Scott maintained that Deckard was a replicant, hence the whole unicorn scene (and of course 'too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?')

        Finally having Ford in it is no assurance of quality, think of the god-awful Indianna Jones 4.

        1. Shrimpling

          "think of the god-awful Indianna Jones 4."

          I don't understand... There were only 3 Indiana Jones films.

          There was only 1 Matrix film as well.

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: "think of the god-awful Indianna Jones 4."

            Shrimpling,

            Good point. Now it's coming up to Christmas, do you think they'll ever make a sequel to Die Hard?

          2. Indolent Wretch

            Re: "think of the god-awful Indianna Jones 4."

            There were only 2 Indiana jones films

            Bike, Pole, Joust.. expelled

    2. Tim Jenkins

      "....Ms.Young's current appearance...."

      Not half bad, IMHO

      http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Sean+Young/Jug+Face+Portraits+2013+Sundance+Film+Festival/D_UDelfcbrX

      (and how could I have forgotten that she was in 'Dune' too? Oh, yeah, right...)

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: "....Ms.Young's current appearance...."

        According to the documentary on Bladerunner, Ridley Scott said he was working on Dune, when he decided to drop it, and do Bladerunner instead. I wonder what he'd have made of it? He'd have struggled to do worse...

        I'm sure someone could make a much better stab at it now, with modern technology. Still a very hard film to do though. So much of the plot is going on in Paul's head.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: "....Ms.Young's current appearance...."

          The Dune 2000 movies were good. Not 100% plot accurate, but still damned fine movies.

          1. Captain Caveman

            Re: "....Ms.Young's current appearance...."

            take a watch of Jodorowsky's Dune.... had watched all the other shite on a flight back from the US to UK so this was the only one I hadn't seen... quite interesting... the influence he had on all the good movies afterwards is astounding for a movie that was never made... technically a screenplay I think?

            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1935156/

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

  6. oddie

    weighing the options...

    Positive: Blade runner is based on a book (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep), which has a sequel (Blade Runner 2 The Edge of Human). As such they might not venture too far into Jar-Jar-Binks territory

    Negative: The 2nd book isn't as good as the first (although still ok). Also, there is no guarantee they will follow the 2nd book / no guarantee that even if they follow the 2nd book it still won't be shit.

    Negative 2: there are 4 books in total - there's a chance disney will buy the whole franchise after the 4th movie (12th movie if Peter Jackson is brought in to direct) and then release a golden stream of meh for decades to come.

    Staying Positive :)

    1. Ralph B

      Re: weighing the options...

      Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was written by Philip K Dick. The Bladerunner follow-ups were not, and therefore are to be taken no more seriously than any other fan-fiction.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. DavCrav Silver badge

        Re: weighing the options...

        "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was written by Philip K Dick. The Bladerunner follow-ups were not, and therefore are to be taken no more seriously than any other fan-fiction."

        I have this vague recollection of Jeter talking to PKD about DADoES before he died, so they would be rather more canonesque than fan fiction, if my memory is right (although it might well not be...).

        1. Havin_it
          Coat

          @DavCrav Re: weighing the options...

          >I have this vague recollection of Jeter talking to PKD about DADoES

          Wouldn't he have been better talking to B&Q about those? Could have helped with his SKiRTING BOaRDS too...

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Steve Crook

        Re: weighing the options...

        Approved by the PKD estate as most likely to make money?

        Hated the original film, and while the directors final, final, absolutely final, never going to be a better version (sorry, did we mention 4k?) cut was an improvement, I still didn't like it that much. I keep watching Blade Runner in its various incarnations expecting (hoping?) to like it, and always being disappointed.

        Don't hold out much hope if the Alien 'prequel' was anything to go by.

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: weighing the options...

      The first film was based on a book which was based on a deep philosophical question by a great author.

      This film is based on a tax demand to a studio exec

      1. Tom 13

        Re: based on a book which was based on a deep philosophical

        If by based on in the same sense as a Sean Connery James Bond film was based on the Ian Flemming book, yes.

        Otherwise, epic fail.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So last time he came out of retirement to kill the skinjobs, this time they'll have to smuggle him out of the old folks home.

    1. Why Not?

      Blade runner the RED edition (old folks and strongmen still have mortgages & alimony to pay)

      Maybe we can get Arnie & Sly into it somehow.

      1. VinceH Silver badge

        So Deckhard will be the Bladerunner equivalent to Murdock from the A-Team, then, except the team will have to break him out of an old folks home instead of a mental hospital?

        In 2019 a crack Blade Runner unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles dystopia. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as hunters of replicants. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them....maybe you can hire The Blade Runner-Team.

  8. Puffin

    "Hans Solo" ? HANS? Oh come on guys, make SOME effort at accuracy! :-P

  9. Foob

    Replicants with no termination date?

    But which version will it follow on from? The Final cut ? In which case do we know if Rachel and/or Deckard have no termination date?

    1. Tom 13

      Re: Replicants with no termination date?

      Deckard had a very definite termination date in the PKD book.

  10. Zot

    "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"

    -Gaff.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"

      Gaff was so depressed by having had to tell this lie that he changed his name, invented himself a new life and enlisted in the Space Navy. He ended up commanding a Battlestar rustbucket with no modern computer support and a misfit crew, not to mention an alcoholic XO.

      And that's when his Replicant troubles REALLY started...

      1. Afflicted.John

        Re: "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"

        I don't know whether to approve of this "crossing the streams". Will think about it...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"

          Gaff ... Edward James Olmos

          Admiral William Adama ... Edward James Olmos

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The full quote, please...

    A quick search gives:

    "You're all clear, kid, now let's *blow* this thing and go home!"

    Probably the best approach to sequels...

    1. Ashton Black

      Re: The full quote, please...

      Well if you want to "blow" stuff up, you'd have to get Michael Bay to direct. BOOM!!!

  12. Tom 7 Silver badge

    If they re-do the bit where Daryl Hannah

    flick-flacks across the floor and sits on Harrisons face they can pay for cleaning the popcorn vomit off the rows in front!

    1. Brian Morrison

      Re: If they re-do the bit where Daryl Hannah

      Slightly prissy comment there...

    2. Mike Bell

      Re: If they re-do the bit where Daryl Hannah

      Not that they would "re-do" that bit, but the scene was entirely in keeping with Pris's design: she was engineered to be a "basic pleasure model". The scene lets us know just how easily she gets off.

      1. Zot

        Re: If they re-do the bit where Daryl Hannah

        And it was actually a bloke that did the forward flipping in that scene! :p

  13. Mark Chapman

    the short life span isn't a problem

    Harrison Fords age isn't necessarily an issue. If you assume Batty died young due to physically pushing himself as a combat model, you could set the film a year or so after the first, have Deckard as an aged person rapidly going old due to the short life span (not being so active he doesn't just drop dead like Batty), it, would however answer the ambiguity of the unicorn.

    Still likely be awful though...

    1. ravenviz Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: the short life span isn't a problem

      IMO Tyrell's statement to Batty about burning twice as bright, living half as long was just to use a Chinese proverb to placate him, not that replicants lived longer if they had quieter lives!

      It didn't seem to work very well though!

  14. Simon Harris Silver badge

    Bladerunner needs a sequel...

    about as much as Alien needed a prequel.

    1. DropBear Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: Bladerunner needs a sequel...

      You seem to be unaware that you in fact have an irresistible need to watch a sequel to Blade Runner. No matter, if all else fails, we shall employ methods you might remember from A Clockwork Orange to make you watch it...

  15. The last doughnut
    FAIL

    Retire me now

    The original book was one thing and the film quite different. It was stylish and original (at least as far as a sci-fi/noir crossover can be). But quite different to the source material, somewhat over-rated and flawed in many ways. As a part-time OCD-er I loath its inconsistencies but still love it as a film.

    Regardless of this, any modern day sequel is pre-destined to be utter sheeite and I fail to see any reason to expect otherwise in this case.

    1. Havin_it

      Re: Retire me now

      >As a part-time OCD-er ...

      I'm pretty sure that's not a thing.

  16. VinceH Silver badge

    "Ford was recently confined to a wheelchair after he suffered a serious ankle injury aboard the Millennium Falcon, which was parked on a film set in London."

    Bloody show off. Why couldn't just take a taxi to the set like the other cast and crew?

  17. John 110

    I'VE....

    ...got a bad feeling about this...

  18. tony
    Happy

    Wizards

    Hopefully they'll set it in wizards school, with maybe some vampires / teen peril.

    1. AbelSoul
      Terminator

      Re: Hopefully they'll set it in wizards school...

      Good grief, I hope not.

      Setting it in a wizard's sleeve would be preferable to that.

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Hopefully they'll set it in wizards school...

        Wizards' sleeve or Wellie Top? Inquiring farmers want to know.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Wizards' sleeve or Wellie Top?.

          Or indeed, Clown's Pocket.

  19. tempemeaty

    Director issues

    I don't think there are any directors who can pull off the kind of atmosphere we get in the original. I don't think they can think outside the box enough to. m(_ _)m

  20. Ant Evans

    Please

    no more Express links. I'm having flashbacks, and they aren't of unicorns.

  21. Afflicted.John

    Please David Fincher....please. Please. Please please.

    Look. Give it a damned chance people. Sorry that Promethius wasn't the prequel everyone wanted but it was still interesting and overall very good IMHO. Preconceptions are not the same as bad film making and Scott knows how to put films together. The fact that Fancher is involved is encouraging as the original script was good. The bickering by the studio turned it into a different beast, but we are in a different world now. The budget etc will not be as much of an issue, and the creative freedom (double edged sword) may give them the chance to make an even bigger film. The team is good, let's have some faith.

  22. NogginTheNog
    Thumb Down

    Sequel?

    Ridley's stock is very low around here after the crap that was Prometheus, so I shan't be waiting for this with too high expectations.

  23. Haku
  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There is one important question ... does it include the incredible Vangelis music?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Nah bruv, Skrillex be doin' da music innit!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      No, it's a toss-up between Taylor Swift and One Direction for the big title ballad.

      They were going to let Vangelis write the catchy ditty, but for some reason he wasn't interested, so Ed Sheeran will be doing it instead.

      The good news is that Sheeran's said "I'm a big *big* Vangelis fan, and I'm going to show what a big fan I am by sampling bits of his music and having Tinie Tempah rap all over it."

      In response to the interviewer's question, Sheeran replied, "No, I said he would *rap* all over Vangelis' work.... what do you mean by "I know what I meant" ?"

  25. Matthew 17

    The only Ridley thing that's got the potential to be interesting is...

    The 3001 Final Odyssey series, IMO it's always been a pity that only 2 of the books were made into films.

    There's no reason to make another BR film, the original one, despite being the best film ever made lost money, no-one who loves the original wants a follow up, no-one else would be interested. All hollywood has to offer these days is endless sequels, reboots and Marvel films. It's a multi $billion industry devoid of an original idea or story.

  26. Mike Smith
    Thumb Down

    What's so great about Blade Runner?

    I found it boring, unoriginal and stuffed to the gills with American cliches. I didn't get it then and I don't get it now.

    The only thing I loved was the music, and that was created by a real master of the art. Everything else was just meh in my eyes.

    Downvote if you must but before you do, tell me - just what sets Blade Runner apart from all the other hackneyed Hollywood sci-fi dribble? All I can see is a scruffy good-ish guy being compelled to hunt down bad guys with an assortment of over-sized recoilless weaponry that he doesn't seem to be able to aim properly when he needs to. What exactly am I missing?

    1. Mike Bell

      Re: What's so great about Blade Runner?

      You're missing the amazing visuals and lighting, which were largely achieved without the help of computers. The question of what it really means to be a human. The question of what it means to have someone else's memories. For starters.

    2. The last doughnut

      Re: What's so great about Blade Runner?

      Epic themes such as life, death, god, love, servitude, retirement, animal bothering. Spectacular visuals and an immense soundtrack. Not one, not two, but three replicant hotties.

    3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Windows

      Re: What's so great about Blade Runner?

      stuffed to the gills with American cliches

      They became clichés AFTER Blade Runner, little grasshopper.

      All I can see is a scruffy good-ish guy

      It's called "hardboiled" style. Luckily the Director's Cut dropped the "I'm Tracer Bullet" voiceover.

      1. Tom 13

        Re: They became clichés AFTER Blade Runner

        No, they were cliches before Blade Runner too. But in fairness to the movie, they didn't feel cliched in the movie.

        Also in fairness to the movie, I'd read the book first and the deviations from the book made me hate the movie even though I liked the special effects and atmospherics.

    4. Bleu

      Re: What's so great about Blade Runner?

      Your post is interesting in that it expresses much the same views (minus your mention of 'American') as those Harrison Ford was expressing over the many years before he signed up for this project.

      1. Mike Smith

        Re: What's so great about Blade Runner?

        Soz - for 'American' read 'Hollywood'. Maybe Harrison's a bit short of the folding stuff these days.

        Some interesting responses to my pot shot at a sacred cow, but I still don't see what's so outstanding about Blade Runner. The effects were certainly good, but they weren't exactly ground-breaking. People raved about Star Wars' effects in 1977, and 2001 is still utterly stunning. Classic film noir used light and shadow to equally great effect - The Third Man springs immediately to mind.

        I thought the characters were very shallow - at least, they were well hidden behind the effects and flaky dialogue. Cinema is a visual medium, and it should be possible to follow the story with the sound off. You might miss a few subtleties, but if you lose the plot completely, it's a sure-fire sign that the script relies too heavily on dialogue.

        Maybe it's because I prefer French cinema, and have grown used to its conventions. My own sacred cow is Jean-Jacques Beineix's Diva. Came out the year before Blade Runner and is still a superb example of bringing characters to life without them having to talk a lot.

    5. Matthew 17

      Re: What's so great about Blade Runner?

      When it appeared it was unique, the first film to present a distopian view of the future since Fritz Lang's Metropolis from the 1930's!

      Visually it's wonderful, sonically legendary, the whole feel and vibe make it totally unique.

      The original theatrical cut is a bit lame, but the director's cut is sublime.

      1. Sandtitz Silver badge

        Re: What's so great about Blade Runner? @Matthew

        "When it appeared it was unique, the first film to present a distopian view of the future since Fritz Lang's Metropolis from the 1930's!"

        Incorrect (very). Educate thyself.

        1. wayward4now

          Re: What's so great about Blade Runner? @Matthew

          I'm still looking for the directors cut of Trancers. That could stand a re-make. :D

    6. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: What's so great about Blade Runner?

      One reason the sequel will be bad will be that it will try to pander for people like you.

      Presumably you are about 20 year too young to appreciate the original Blade Runner, which is fine, but that's why the new film will be awful.

  27. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge

    The trouble with being a critic...

    I've seen things...

    1. Frumious Bandersnatch Silver badge

      Re: The trouble with being a critic...

      I've seen things...

      Me too. TBH I'd be more excited to see Rutger Haeur or someone of his calibre than Harrison Ford. I think that I've read that he improvised/wrote the whole "I've seen things" soliloquy himself.

      Note to director: you could do worse than include "The Ballad of Roy Batty" by Grumbling Fur in the soundtrack.

  28. chivo243 Silver badge
    Meh

    Hopeful

    However, not expecting in any way. I welcome a sequel, it has been a long time, maybe a sequel will be done well, just not another - headline, profit and shittiest film award. Maybe films are like rock and roll, just a young man's game... I am failing to see interest in new films in genres I used appreciate.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Hopeful

      Or they could just do a new good film instead.

  29. Bleu

    Might actually be good. someone who

    is on record for hating his role in Bladerunner, H. Ford, has finally noticed the many who see it as his finest performance.

    Give us a break.

    Does he get to beat Rachel (Sean Young) up IRL one more time?

    Can Rutger Hauer return?

    I am sure it will be garbanzola.

    For the OPs who are hating KW Jeter's sequel novels, sure he is not PK Dick, the latter has been deceased for rather a long time.

    If you knew anything about the literature, you would know that Jeter was a housemate of PK, he is the character Kevin in Valis.

    That to me seems to place him in a good position to write the sequel novels that attempt to reconcile the film with PKD's original novel.

    The Jeter novels are flawed, but have some great passages.

    Sure, Hollywood will ignore those on this project, perhaps grabbing a few impressionistic details, which is precisely how they treated 'Do Androids' in the first place.

    I loved the movie, but am always a little disturbed by how it reversed the themes of the novel-which Ridley Scott proudly boasted that he'd never read.

    This sequel is bound to be a crock of poo.

    1. IsJustabloke Silver badge

      Re: Might actually be good. someone who

      KW Jetter is an appallingly bad writer.

  30. BongoJoe Silver badge

    Re Replicant

    I saw one of the many directors cuts and in that one it was clear which were the replicants; they all had glowing eyes. Deckard's eyes were the same.

    It sort of killed it for me and that version didn't have the majesty of the original release.

    The bolt on bit -- that was from the operning sequence of The Shining, wasn't it?

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Re Replicant

      The bolt on bit -- that was from the operning sequence of The Shining, wasn't it?

      Indeed.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Still hurting from Prometheus!

    Will probably avoid.

    Different Director or not.

  32. JDJ

    You'e all mssing the big question

    namely - will it be finished in time to premere in Los Angeles in November, 2019?

  33. trance gemini
    Angel

    BR game ...

    ... after the superbness of Alien Isolation i reckon Creative Assembly should get to work on an updated Blade Runner game

    now that would get us robosluts excited

    1. Sooty

      Re: BR game ...

      I really hope telltale do one, I think that could be great.

  34. King Jack Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Sequels usually fail because they always try to incorporate parts of the original story. They insist on actors making cameo appearances which adds nothing to the story. I life things happen and you don't get people from your past just dropping by to say hello.

  35. Steve Jackson
    Stop

    Alien, whist being entertaining, isn't attempting to even try to be the same film Bladerunner turned out to be.

    That's why, as excreable as Prometheus was, it didn't really harm the franchise. Being a prequel of sorts also helped to allow it to stand alone. Despite the promising cast and 'golden' director it sucked pretty hard.

    I'd rather anyone attached to the original project gave it a wide berth. Hampton Fancher's screenplays for BR were manifold and finished by David Peoples. Harrison Ford hated making the film and it gives Deckard exactly what a 'straight' jobbing actor would have missed. Every aspect of casting, performance, production, cinematography, score, effects, finance and direction were a perfect storm.

    They'd be messing with something absolutely golden if it were to be officially a sequel to the original movie. Just no. The sequel books were fan fiction. There is no after story.

  36. Duffaboy

    Working Title

    Prometheus 2

  37. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    It's going to be great.

    Just like Prometheus was.

    1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: Bah!

      He he, good one!

  38. Zot

    It's easy to forget that critics hated Blade Runner!

    Most gave it about 2 out of 5 at the time!

    Whenever I saw one of those film Critic Books you used to be able to get, I'd search through for Blade Runner and see how well it had done, and it was always panned - I never bought any of those film books of course as I presumed they would be wrong about other films as well, as they had no sense of spectacle, or atmosphere.

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Maybe the doc should have used a quote from another Harrison Ford character

    It belongs in a museum.

  40. T J

    Storm of brown

    No, no it will be shit.

  41. john 103

    Tears etc

    I have to say I wouldn't mind seeing Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion or watching c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A 50 year old scifi nerd

    It won't be good for a number of reasons.

    First: I was OK overlooking the fact that replicants could easily have been marked for easy recognition (like having a large X tattooed in their foreheads, for example). Today I would be more critical to a thin story like that.

    Second: Replacing the impressive and ground breaking special effects with modern soul-less CGI will make it bad per definition. (Just look at the awful remake of Total Recall, which I did not manage to finish watching.)

    Third: Today's audience demands non-stop action, and can't keep their attention on things that have a varied tempo. All good movies ever made have variations in tempo (or are just slow from start to end). Again see the remake of Total Recall for terrifying example.

    Fourth: Were do you find someone like Rutger Hauer who can actually bring more to the role than the script demands? Where do you find a director who is not a micro managing maniac that destroys any little spontaneity the actor might have brought to the movie?

    Fifth: With large sums being bet on success, and focus group type screenings, it will all be bland in the end. Design by committee.

    I would be astonished if it turned out to be worth watching.

  43. Indolent Wretch

    Hmmm Ford was in "Last Crusade".

    That didn't work out.

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019