# NEW Blade Runner



## Hellrasinbrasin (Mar 3, 2011)

Alcon Entertainment is looking to acquire the rights to produce prequels and sequels to the 1982 cult classic "Blade Runner," according to the Hollywood Reporter.

The trade paper reports that the company is in final negotiations to potentially create a franchise around the movie, which was based on Phillip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep."

It was director Ridley Scott's follow-up to the box office smash "Alien," but it was considered a box office bomb at the time, only grossing $27.6 million, according to Boxofficemojo.com.

In 1992, a Director's Cut - which removed the narration from star Harrison Ford, among other things - hit theaters, and the movie has since been considered one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time. A "Final Cut" was released on DVD and Blu-Ray in 2007, the same year that the American Film Institute ranked it in its list of the 100 best films.

The more recent cuts especially left the resolution of the story up in the air, so this is probably not the first time a sequel has been pondered by fans and Hollywood execs alike.

In a statement to THR, Alcon Entertainment's Andrew Kosove and Broderick Johnson said, "We recognize the responsibility we have to do justice to the memory of the original with any prequel or sequel we produce. We have long-term goals for the franchise, and are exploring multi-platform concepts, not just limiting ourselves to one medium."

What do you think of this idea? Are you excited to see more "Blade Runner" or should the original stand on its own? Would you like to see Harrison Ford or Sean Young return to their roles? Comment below.

Source:


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Mar 3, 2011)

Will they actually be good this time? I didn't much care for Bladerunner if I'm being honest. It was a snoozefest.


----------



## Time Expired (Mar 3, 2011)

IDK - I think perhaps it should be left alone.


----------



## Parallax (Mar 3, 2011)

This is a terrible idea

a terrible terrible idea that just pisses me off.


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Mar 3, 2011)

As for films set after Blade Runner I don't think that they should focus on Deckard or Rachael or even on the subject of Replicants but on something just as serious as the theme was in the Original film. 

If the writters can come up with a strong Story then I'm all for a 2nd round of Blade Runner.


----------



## Adonis (Mar 3, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Will they actually be good this time? I didn't much care for Bladerunner if I'm being honest. It was a snoozefest.



It also had a retarded premise.


----------



## Talon. (Mar 3, 2011)

Dont fuck with Blade Runner.


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Mar 3, 2011)

I guess we will be waiting for these film projects to start before spewing Venom into Warner Bros.


----------



## Huntress (Mar 4, 2011)

The thing is, Blade Runner was so 80s. Its not the 80s anymore, I dont see how you could get that atmosphere back.
I mean check out that technology lol. It looks so dated now. But to put modern technology in wouldnt work either.
I mean its a good movie but its not a sequel kind of movie.
Wtf is with everything having sequels? its really annoying, and it ends up making u hate the whole franchise.
And why the fuck would they bring back ford and young? that would be hideous...


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 4, 2011)

..


> "We recognize the responsibility we have to do justice to the memory of the original with any prequel or sequel we produce. We have long-term goals for the franchise, and are exploring multi-platform concepts, not just limiting ourselves to one medium."



Schmucks.


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Mar 7, 2011)

Ugh, does that mean Blade Runner: The videogame? No thank you.

The new Deus Ex already has that covered.


----------



## Vault (Mar 7, 2011)

Sigh, not a huge fan of Bladerunner due to not doing the book any justice  Now they wanna make a sequel? Sigh.


----------



## αshɘs (Mar 7, 2011)

Terrible, terrible idea. Just leave it alone.

Also stop with the sequels, prequels and reboots already.


----------



## R00t_Decision (Apr 23, 2011)

blade runner is my favorite film of all time.

i'm actually ok with a prequel, if they respect the creativity and deliver on a solid film. i'm all for it.

perhaps, do a good prequel and then maybe do a sequel based on fan reaction to the prequel.

i respect people that do not get this film or don't like it, at least they respect it for the one type of film it is.

you do not want to piss of sci fi nerds holy grails. I think warner brothers is a good studio to. I wish I had a list of movies they published in the last 5 years, but from my general knowledge WB is one of the few BIG studios that tries to put quality out.

and like one guy said, i wonder how they are going to capture the gringy dystopia feel of the film. The film has a charming 80's feel, that was filmed with the camera's they used back then, plus there's that great 80's synthesizer sound track.

I think it can be done, Tron did a good job capturing the feel of the original, but with capturing in blade runner, it's more about delivering on all aspects to make a truly great film.

The last true film to get that retrospective feeling that 80's films offer i think was the dark night released in 2008.  It felt real and not full of "shiny" graphics.


----------



## Lamb (Apr 23, 2011)

Honestly, the only way I could see this working is if they recreated the entire _Blade Runner_ universe to explore some of the more major themes of _Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep?_

I personally feel that _Blade Runner_ deserves credit for being one of the best noir films of all time, but can't hide my dream of there some day being a film version of Dick's best novel, that actually explores stuff like defining humanity and empathy vs apathy, instead of solely focusing on stuff like human excess and robots.

If they really want to stick to the whole future noir aesthetic, they should just do something they haven't done already (like a film version of _Neuromancer_, that doesn't sound like it's gonna be a stupid blockbusting action flick).


----------



## Tion (Apr 24, 2011)

I agree with Lamb, if you're going to make sequels it can only really be expanded based on Dick's book. Otherwise it's going to be out of sequence. Film Noir was also what made BladeRunner quality, which was predominant in the 80s, but I'm not sure how well it'll fair in modern viewing. I'm not a fan of sequels unless there were intended from the beginning. More often then not it's just franchise milking which always equates to crap. On the other hand, sequels/prequels might give Ridley's underrated movie the attention it deserves.


----------



## blue berry (Apr 24, 2011)

Nooooooo

They'll have to change it to like... Year 3325 to suit it in 
Because 2017 in reality will never look like how they did it

So they are trying to remake a classic? Fine. Remake Back to the Future why don't you as well


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Apr 24, 2011)

Hate to be the guy who hates Blade Runner,but I thought it was boring. Just a boring romance movie that tried its hand at mystery. I hope the prequel is better.


----------



## Parallax (Apr 24, 2011)

You suck and you probably missed the entire point of the movie if you thought it was a mystery or even tried to be a mystery which it never was or did.


----------



## Lamb (Apr 24, 2011)

Lincoln Rhyme said:


> Hate to be the guy who hates Blade Runner,but I thought it was boring. Just a boring romance movie that tried its hand at mystery. I hope the prequel is better.



I don't see how any one could refer to it as a romance...


----------



## Tion (Apr 25, 2011)

Lincoln Rhyme said:


> Hate to be the guy who hates Blade Runner,but I thought it was boring. Just a boring romance movie that tried its hand at mystery. I hope the prequel is better.



Way to completely miss the point.


----------



## Pseudo (Apr 25, 2011)

Hasn't Hollywood learned from their past mistakes? This thing will more than likely fail.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Apr 25, 2011)

Explain to us what it was supposed to be then? 

Better yet, I'll save you the effort.

Some esoteric boreshitfest is what it is. Who cares? It was boring. I didn't like it at all myself.


----------



## Parallax (Apr 25, 2011)

then again you like bad movies


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Apr 25, 2011)

Name 5 bad movies I like and maybe I will concede.


----------



## Adonis (Apr 25, 2011)

A society creates slave-robots with super-strength and for some reason decide giving them false memories and unique faces is good logistics. Then, when these robots start raging, the solution doesn't take the easy route of going back to the drawing board and installing fail-safes/reversing retarded design choices. No, the solution is much more roundabout: 1) develop a voluntary Turing test that a raging super-robot wouldn't consent to and 2) form a special police division to apprehend these robots.

It's like designing a toaster that inexplicably bursts into flames and deciding, "Hmmm, better form a special RAGING INFERNO TOASTER fire department that deals solely with this issue rather than, you know, not designing toasters to explode." The future is efficient.


----------



## Lamb (Apr 25, 2011)

Adonis said:


> A society creates slave-robots with super-strength and for some reason decide giving them false memories and unique faces is good logistics. Then, when these robots start raging, the solution doesn't take the easy route of going back to the drawing board and installing fail-safes/reversing retarded design choices. No, the solution is much more roundabout: 1) develop a voluntary Turing test that a raging super-robot wouldn't consent to and 2) form a special police division to apprehend these robots.
> 
> It's like designing a toaster that inexplicably bursts into flames and deciding, "Hmmm, better form a special RAGING INFERNO TOASTER fire department that deals solely with this issue rather than, you know, not designing toasters to explode." The future is efficient.



What?

First, the society didn't give all robots false memories, one scientist gave one robot the memory of his granddaughter, to see if he could create a robot that could pass an empathy test, believing that genuine human emotion stems from and is created by long-term memory. He fails.

Second, they explain that the androids are given unique bodies and build based on the type of robot and the tasks the robot is meant carry out. The human look and somewhat human personality was meant to make it easier for the humans to interact with the machines, which worked, but at the same time created a lot of animosity due to human's need to illustrate how they are better than the androids through the fact that everything about the androids is synthetic, whereas the humans have genuine emotions and personalities. This leads to a violent robot rebellion which is unsuccessful and leads to all humanoid androids being forced to work as slaves on the Mars colony.

Third, the androids do have a massive fail safe. No android lives longer that 4 years.

Now, since you've realized how wrong your explanation is, I'll point out that almost all of this stuff is explained within the first 30 seconds of the film.


----------



## Adonis (Apr 25, 2011)

Lamb said:


> What?
> 
> First, the society didn't give all robots false memories, one scientist gave one robot the memory of his granddaughter, to see if he could create a robot that could pass an empathy test, believing that genuine human emotion stems from and is created by long-term memory. He fails.



Alright, it's been a while.



> Second, they explain that the androids are given unique bodies and build based on the type of robot and the tasks the robot is meant carry out. The human look and somewhat human personality was meant to make it easier for the humans to interact with the machines, which worked, but at the same time created a lot of animosity due to human's need to illustrate how they are better than the androids through the fact that everything about the androids is synthetic, whereas the humans have genuine emotions and personalities. This leads to a violent robot rebellion which is unsuccessful and leads to all humanoid androids being forced to work as slaves on the Mars colony.



What could possibly go wrong giving machines designed for menial labor identities? The benefit of making the robots relatable is vastly outweighed by the risks. And if it's a must, you can accomplish a personable robot without making them perfect simacularums of humanity (even humans can lack affect). Why make them superficially indistinguishable from people and give them unique faces to boot with no obvious observable means of identifying them as killer death bots?



> Third, the androids do have a massive fail safe. No android lives longer that 4 years.



I was thinking something a little more instaneous like a killswitch. A plan that boils down to, we can either send couple beat cops (one of whom may or may not be a replicant without the benefit of robot strength) or "wait 'em out" is a shitty plan.

Four years is a long time for an android demigod to wreak havoc.



> Now, since you've realized how wrong your explanation is, I'll point out that almost all of this stuff is explained within the first 30 seconds of the film.



The only thing I got wrong was the false memory thing which isn't even one of the egregious oversights that leads to the androids being dangerous; it's just sadistic.

Giving what qualifies as heavy machinery personalities, unique faces and no identifying marks are far more sunstantial contributors to the premise being retarded.


----------



## Parallax (Apr 26, 2011)

Watching Blade Runner purely for plot is downright stupid though


----------



## Tyrael (Apr 26, 2011)

The robots look like humans because it is going down the route of asking questions about the value of life and our preconceptions of it. There are better within universe justifications, but on a narrative level that's basically it. As I see it, if something is well justified on a narrative and thematic level, it's only worth taking issue with it if the thing in question is undeniably, mind-blowing stupid. Otherwise, it's really not a big issue.

I have to agree that the idea of a movie closer to Dick's vision holds it's appeal, but I really don't trust Hollywood to do a remake justice to either the original novel or the first film.


----------



## TSC (Apr 26, 2011)

I love Blade Runner for it's great artistic and atmosphere scenery direction. I think that's one of main reason this film gets high praise. Even of the story or plot may bore some which can to audience it's not aimed for, but I think the greatest aspect of the movie is the cyberpunk/ sci-fi futuristic setting.

As for the sequel prequel deal...personally i'm against it. as someone earlier said, because it was made in the 80's and carry filming style from the 80's, the transition would feel very awkward completely different. It was same deal I had a problem with for Star Wars prequels. The prequels and the OT felt like completely different films because of the technology upgrade and overuse CGI.

so yeah, I don't think it's good idea give more to this movie.


----------

