Blade Runner was a nearly perfect story. It is also a closed loop... a completed story. It is the story of a man who doesn't feel very human, but discovers his humanity in the final seconds of the life of a robot who was ready to kill for more life until he realized that if he truly honored the life he wanted, then he could not take the life of another. Where is there room for a sequel in that?
Will Deckard now discover more of his own humanity? Hardly. Humanity doesn't work that way. Perhaps we'll see Roy brought back to life, and thereby entirely invalidate the amazing beauty of his death-bed epiphany? Or will we see Gaff hunt down Deckard and Rachel, which really had nothing to do with the story except giving Deckard another mirror in which he could assess his humanity?
Sadly, I suspect the answer is sort of yes. Sadly, I suspect the answer is that we will see a hot young boob-heavy hottie chasing killer robots and blowing them away with an enormous phallus uh, gun, as the reborn Roy runs around kicking puppies and shooting his friends. There will be no epiphany for Roy this time. Hottie won't even question whether she's human or not, though the twist will tell us the truth 2 minutes and 58 seconds before the credits roll. Meanwhile, a more twisted, fetish-leather-clad Gaff will run around shooting Hottie's boyfriend in the plot-hole.
Why would anyone make a sequel to Blade Runner?
Seriously. What can be gained from reopening an ICONIC film with ICONIC characters? Nothing.
So why make a sequel to Blade Runner?
I don't know... but something tells me the answer is hidden in this picture below:
Terrible idea, so you can be sure that they will do it.
If you think about it they only reason they ever make a sequel if for the money. Some movies are written with sequels in mind, if they are successful then the sequel is made, if they are not then no sequel.
The ones I hate the most is when the first movie is made blatantly with sequels in mind and it takes away from the story. Tell your story then if you want to do a sequel you should be able to think up another story without having to spend part of the first movie setting it up.
And some movies are written as a single story and a sequel or two is only made after the original movie made a lot of money and they want more of that. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
On one hand, I'd like to think if they were really obsessed with the money, they would've tried this years ago and it would've been exactly what you described. (Although the concept of "boob-heavy" isn't inherently a bad thing.) :-)
On the other hand, Ridley Scott doesn't have the best reputation with sequels and prequels. But he's not directing—that job has gone to Denis Villeneuve, director of 2013's Prisoners which I've heard was very good. I just hope he dials up his cinematographer Roger Deakins (the man who shot Skyfall)... Deakins was born to film a movie like Blade Runner!
My problems are twofold: 1.) Any ambiguity and mystery will be thrown out the window, and I'm referring to both this film and threads left hanging by the first one... and 2.) the "Blade Runner look" has been ripped off too many times to count. How will this one distinguish itself?
P.S. Not related but just a few days after the death of Leonard Nimoy, we lost another Trek luminary: Harve Bennett, who led the film franchise through the 80s, producing and/or (co-)writing Treks II, III, IV, and V.
Scott, I've noticed how a number of movies lately (especially those based on books) will wrap up the first installment of a trilogy very nicely, then make a sequel so open-ended it cannot stand alone, ensuring the third film. I'm told by fans of some such books that filmmakers have gone as far as to put the closing chapters of book 2 at the beginning of film 3.
Good synopsis of the eventual story. But you forgot the obligatory "And replicants are being denied universal health care" subplot or the obligatory "violent, fundamentalist Replicant-phobic Christian group" is trying to hunt down and kill Roy and Boob girl.
While I'm sure there are plenty attached to the sequel project with $$ in their eyes, I think Ridley himself is trying to build a universe (i.e. cement his legacy as a scifi filmmaker). Prometheus was hyped largely on its ties to the Alien franchise. I'm told that the Prom. DVD bonus features suggest Tyrell Corp is a competitor of Weyland.
I expect the Blade Runner sequel to link to the Alien franchise with all the subtlety of a bare-chested hottie shouldering an anti-tank missile.
I remember speculation of a Blade Runner sequel going back decades, so I’m not surprised they are making one. Actually, in this day and age, I’m surprised it’s an actual sequel and not a reboot or even a prequel.
In addition to the possible $$$, I think it’s also a case of “star-past-his-prime trying to revisit old glory,” like Stallone’s revisiting of Rocky and Rambo. Harrison Ford isn’t the box office draw he used to be, and making a Blade Runner sequel would no doubt draw interest. It’s probably the same incentive for him to do the new Star Wars, as he was never as enthusiastic about playing Han Solo as he was, say, Indiana Jones.
Scott, I agree. If you really need a sequel from the outset, then do a television series. Otherwise, do the story for the story and worry about the sequel later. Don't give us half a movie. That drives me nuts every time I see a film that is nothing more than a set up for a sequel!
ScottDS, Those are the problems with a sequel here. To continue the story in any meaningful way will necessarily undo the mystery that the first one left us with, and yeah, the look is so ripped off that the film begins with a big handicap.
tryanmax, LOL! Yep, it's in the numbers somewhere! :D
I'm not as troubled by the sequel leaving itself open for a third film as I am the kinds of films like Last Airbender or Golden Compass. You need to pull me in before you start trying to treat a group of films like a series.
Jason, I'm a little surprised it's not a reboot either.
Yeah, a lot of past-their-prime stars seem to think films like this are a great way to recapture some of the glory days. For me, they usually just come across as sad as they remind us how old they've become.
I guess it depends on how the sequel is written. If they focus on the world and the problem with replicants rather than on the previous characters, it could work. Tyrell industries is in ruins; workers for the off world mines are reaching the end of their life; chaos; rebellion...
Who am I kidding! It will be a porn of guns and explosions and yes probably big, perky boobs on a skinny young actress who will also be able to bring down highly trained military special forces guys with just her bare hands.
I'm absolutely against a sequel. it won't work. But they aren't listening to me. Why not do an original movie from a host of great novels that have not been put on the screen? Rendezvous with Rama, The Stars My Destination, The Mote in God's Eye, Footfall,,,,,I could go on and on...Hollywood is a vast wasteland. sigh
Hey does Hollywood need an idea? How about an epic movie about the fall of England to the Normans..you could start with King Harold Godwinson's stand at Stamford bridge against Harald of Denmark and his forced march to Hastings and death at the hand of William's Normans.
Hey, I don't know. Maybe some dancing gophers can be shown in an extended dance cut remix of the "Jub-Jub" song. C'mon, Harrison, if yer gonna piss on the memories of your least appreciated iconic character, you might as go full retard and burn them all down, down to the ground.
Critch, In all seriousness, the sad truth is that Hollywood has decided only to pursue "sure things." That means lots and lots of remakes of things that have already scored at the box office. New = risky. And even famous old books are considered dangerous because of John Carter.
Koshcat, They definitely could make a cool movie out of this, but I doubt they will. I think they'll go the big-boob-robot-killing-explosive-big-shiny route.
Eric, Could you imagine them giving this film the Lucas treatment? Every corner of the film will be filled with dancing robots and pooping animals. Ug.
Then Spielberg will replace all the guns with radios.
Worst of all, even worse than anything previously mentioned: no voiceover, in my book the coolest aspect of what made the original such bad-ass future noir.
Yes or they take the third book and split it into two movies like The Hunger Games and Twlight, making 3 books into 4 movies. Like the recent Hobbit movies (1 book into 3 movies) it is just a cash grab.
Critch,
I'd love to see '1066', though I'd think that it would be better as an HBO mini series as the story is too big for one movie. They could make it into a few movies, but if the first one didn't make heaps of money that would be it.
I've always said that history is more interesting then most made up stuff, over the last few thousand years people have done just about everything.
George Washington is the reason they are making a sequel?
ReplyDeleteHowzabout: 50 Shades of Blade Runner?
Now with 87% more leather!
Terrible idea, so you can be sure that they will do it.
ReplyDeleteIf you think about it they only reason they ever make a sequel if for the money. Some movies are written with sequels in mind, if they are successful then the sequel is made, if they are not then no sequel.
The ones I hate the most is when the first movie is made blatantly with sequels in mind and it takes away from the story. Tell your story then if you want to do a sequel you should be able to think up another story without having to spend part of the first movie setting it up.
And some movies are written as a single story and a sequel or two is only made after the original movie made a lot of money and they want more of that. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Scott.
On one hand, I'd like to think if they were really obsessed with the money, they would've tried this years ago and it would've been exactly what you described. (Although the concept of "boob-heavy" isn't inherently a bad thing.) :-)
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Ridley Scott doesn't have the best reputation with sequels and prequels. But he's not directing—that job has gone to Denis Villeneuve, director of 2013's Prisoners which I've heard was very good. I just hope he dials up his cinematographer Roger Deakins (the man who shot Skyfall)... Deakins was born to film a movie like Blade Runner!
My problems are twofold: 1.) Any ambiguity and mystery will be thrown out the window, and I'm referring to both this film and threads left hanging by the first one... and 2.) the "Blade Runner look" has been ripped off too many times to count. How will this one distinguish itself?
P.S. Not related but just a few days after the death of Leonard Nimoy, we lost another Trek luminary: Harve Bennett, who led the film franchise through the 80s, producing and/or (co-)writing Treks II, III, IV, and V.
USS Ben, No, the secret code is somewhere in the serial numbers on the bills. I'm putting my beautiful mind to work on it now. :-)
ReplyDeleteScott, I've noticed how a number of movies lately (especially those based on books) will wrap up the first installment of a trilogy very nicely, then make a sequel so open-ended it cannot stand alone, ensuring the third film. I'm told by fans of some such books that filmmakers have gone as far as to put the closing chapters of book 2 at the beginning of film 3.
ReplyDeleteGood synopsis of the eventual story. But you forgot the obligatory "And replicants are being denied universal health care" subplot or the obligatory "violent, fundamentalist Replicant-phobic Christian group" is trying to hunt down and kill Roy and Boob girl.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm sure there are plenty attached to the sequel project with $$ in their eyes, I think Ridley himself is trying to build a universe (i.e. cement his legacy as a scifi filmmaker). Prometheus was hyped largely on its ties to the Alien franchise. I'm told that the Prom. DVD bonus features suggest Tyrell Corp is a competitor of Weyland.
ReplyDeleteI expect the Blade Runner sequel to link to the Alien franchise with all the subtlety of a bare-chested hottie shouldering an anti-tank missile.
I remember speculation of a Blade Runner sequel going back decades, so I’m not surprised they are making one. Actually, in this day and age, I’m surprised it’s an actual sequel and not a reboot or even a prequel.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the possible $$$, I think it’s also a case of “star-past-his-prime trying to revisit old glory,” like Stallone’s revisiting of Rocky and Rambo. Harrison Ford isn’t the box office draw he used to be, and making a Blade Runner sequel would no doubt draw interest. It’s probably the same incentive for him to do the new Star Wars, as he was never as enthusiastic about playing Han Solo as he was, say, Indiana Jones.
Ben, LOLOLOLOL! Yes! It is because of George Washington! And your idea of 50 Shades of Blade Runner is awesome! :D
ReplyDeleteScott, I agree. If you really need a sequel from the outset, then do a television series. Otherwise, do the story for the story and worry about the sequel later. Don't give us half a movie. That drives me nuts every time I see a film that is nothing more than a set up for a sequel!
ReplyDeleteScottDS, Those are the problems with a sequel here. To continue the story in any meaningful way will necessarily undo the mystery that the first one left us with, and yeah, the look is so ripped off that the film begins with a big handicap.
ReplyDeleteRIP Harve Bennett
tryanmax, LOL! Yep, it's in the numbers somewhere! :D
ReplyDeleteI'm not as troubled by the sequel leaving itself open for a third film as I am the kinds of films like Last Airbender or Golden Compass. You need to pull me in before you start trying to treat a group of films like a series.
PikeBishop, Yeah, I forgot about the Religious Republican subplot. Ug.
ReplyDeletetryanmax, That would make for an interesting connection and it's very possible too. Interesting! Thanks for pointing that out! :D
ReplyDeleteJason, I'm a little surprised it's not a reboot either.
ReplyDeleteYeah, a lot of past-their-prime stars seem to think films like this are a great way to recapture some of the glory days. For me, they usually just come across as sad as they remind us how old they've become.
I guess it depends on how the sequel is written. If they focus on the world and the problem with replicants rather than on the previous characters, it could work. Tyrell industries is in ruins; workers for the off world mines are reaching the end of their life; chaos; rebellion...
ReplyDeleteWho am I kidding! It will be a porn of guns and explosions and yes probably big, perky boobs on a skinny young actress who will also be able to bring down highly trained military special forces guys with just her bare hands.
*sigh, and sci-fi used to be fun
I'm absolutely against a sequel. it won't work. But they aren't listening to me. Why not do an original movie from a host of great novels that have not been put on the screen? Rendezvous with Rama, The Stars My Destination, The Mote in God's Eye, Footfall,,,,,I could go on and on...Hollywood is a vast wasteland. sigh
ReplyDeleteHey does Hollywood need an idea? How about an epic movie about the fall of England to the Normans..you could start with King Harold Godwinson's stand at Stamford bridge against Harald of Denmark and his forced march to Hastings and death at the hand of William's Normans.
ReplyDeleteHey, I don't know. Maybe some dancing gophers can be shown in an extended dance cut remix of the "Jub-Jub" song. C'mon, Harrison, if yer gonna piss on the memories of your least appreciated iconic character, you might as go full retard and burn them all down, down to the ground.
ReplyDeleteCritch, In all seriousness, the sad truth is that Hollywood has decided only to pursue "sure things." That means lots and lots of remakes of things that have already scored at the box office. New = risky. And even famous old books are considered dangerous because of John Carter.
ReplyDeleteKoshcat, They definitely could make a cool movie out of this, but I doubt they will. I think they'll go the big-boob-robot-killing-explosive-big-shiny route.
ReplyDeleteEric, Could you imagine them giving this film the Lucas treatment? Every corner of the film will be filled with dancing robots and pooping animals. Ug.
ReplyDeleteThen Spielberg will replace all the guns with radios.
Ouch... that hurt my soul. :(
Worst of all, even worse than anything previously mentioned: no voiceover, in my book the coolest aspect of what made the original such bad-ass future noir.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteYou are right, it is all about money.
For there is nothing quite as wonderful as money, nothing quite as beautiful as cash. With money you can make a smash!
"Then Spielberg will replace all the guns with radios."
ReplyDeleteHEY! At least Spielberg saw the error of his ways and put the guns back in for the blu-ray release.
Give the man some credit!
And I know this because I own the blu-ray release.
Don't believe me? Look at this trailer for the blu-ray, at 0:26, GUNS! LINK
tryanmax,
ReplyDeleteYes or they take the third book and split it into two movies like The Hunger Games and Twlight, making 3 books into 4 movies. Like the recent Hobbit movies (1 book into 3 movies) it is just a cash grab.
Critch,
I'd love to see '1066', though I'd think that it would be better as an HBO mini series as the story is too big for one movie. They could make it into a few movies, but if the first one didn't make heaps of money that would be it.
I've always said that history is more interesting then most made up stuff, over the last few thousand years people have done just about everything.
Scott.
I didn't read your post yet...just wanted to say that the image you have up top is awesome...I will now read the post...
ReplyDeleteWell, the movie did suck indeed. The lack of subtility was its prime featue.
ReplyDelete