Ridley Scott is officially directing a new Blade Runner film.

I never thought that we would actually see the day, but it appears to be here. In a move that will certain ignite many emotional responses, Ridley Scott is confirmed to direct and produce a new Blade Runner film. Deadline has the official press release, which states that the filmmakers are not commenting yet on whether it will be a sequel or a prequel.

Since childhood, the Blade Runner universe has always been one I (and certainly many others who grew up with the film) have wanted to explore more. How couldn’t a young child? Harrison Ford! Guns! Flying cars! Replicants! The strange and dark vision of a cyberpunk dystopian future! It’s one of those films I’ve always felt nostalgically connected to, and as such, irrationally in need to praise and defend. As a kid, I always referred to Raiders, Star Wars, and Blade Runner as the “Holy Trilogy of Harrison.” When I was ten or eleven, I bought and read numerous times the novelized sequel Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human – a novel of which I am glad to remember very little – and around the same time bought the Blade Runner PC game for Windows 95 (I never did beat that damn game). In my college years, I would go on to read Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, which Ridley’s film was based on. As an adult, I’ve come to appreciate Blade Runner for different reasons and it’s still a film that I pop in to watch a few times a year.

So needless to say, I can’t help but be emotionally attached to such news. While loving the world that Ridley created from Dick’s novel, I’ve subsequently always denounced the idea of filming a sequel because the wonder left by the first film was part of the fascination. Throw in the fact that both of the other two in the Holy Trilogy of Harrison have been butchered with god awful CGI-laden sequels/prequels and my skepticism seems justified.

Still, despite this impossibly avoidable cynicism, I vow to remain open-minded until I know more. Since this is going to happen, we might as well accept it and hope for the best. In Ridley we trust.

What do you want to see in this continuation of the Blade Runner universe? A prequel? A sequel? Could it be possible to bring Harrison back as Deckard (that’d be sure to strike up some heated nerdtastic arguments)? Perhaps a new, more badass Blade Runner (so help me, if it’s Sam Worthington…)? Or do all of these ideas sound equally terrible? Chime in, dear readers!





13 comments

  1. Kurt Halfyard

    I don’t want none of it.

    I’d pay to see a Paul Verhoeven or David Fincher directed off-shoot in that world though. It’d sure beat the shit out of Paul W.S. Anderson’s SOLIDER which was supposedly set in the same universe…

  2. I wish Hollywood would learn their lesson and leave it alone. But since they aren’t, it has to be a prequel. I agree that the mystique of the ending of the original shouldn’t be tarnished.

  3. Blasphemous I know, but I don’t find the original all that great. Rutger Hauer being the exception

  4. What Ridley Scott is doing with the Alien prequel Prometheus sounds really interesting. So far it *seems* to more than just a prequel but a movie in it’s own right with some very big ideas. It remains to be seen how that turns out but right now it sounds incredibly promising.

    A similar take on Blade Runner, of not continuing the story but just continuing some of the ideas from the original could be cool. I have no interest in returning to any of the characters from the original movie as going back or forth in either a sequel or prequel doesn’t make sense to me. A new story, a new take in that universe could result in something interesting. There’s a lot of different directions it could go with plenty of material still left to grab from the original Philip K. Dick novel.

    We will have to wait for more information, but I am somewhat optimistic about it’s possibilities.

    I imagine the success or failure of Prometheus will have a big effect on how a new Blade Runner will be viewed with the press and audiences alike.

  5. antho42

    Except for the visuals and the atmosphere, Blade Runner is not that great. A failed experiment.

  6. Kurt Halfyard

    I restrained myself at Fantasia at not picking an argument with him, preferring to stay in the background at the Irish Embassy during a dinner at the same (long) table, or in a weird conversation about dentistry at some party….but I digress. It’s hard to take seriously someone who throws Sucker Punch up on a pedestal and feels the need to nit-pick Blade Runner. OK, maybe ‘there is no heart’ is more of a nitpick, but prattling on about production design not reflecting the ‘realism of how a character would live’ design seems like the wrong approach.

    Some of his points are cogent, but this one I want to call out: Accident or not, the fact that Blade Runner is a movie about artificial beings, and has a weird, trapped in amber artificial feel to it, is kind of

      awesome

    . I don’t care if it happened by accident. THERE IT IS.

    And the “Deckard is a Replicant” theory is a stretch by most. The symbol there is more important than a literal interpretation. It brings up that we are an amalgamation of our own experiences, and we make of them what we will in the now, looking towards the future, the past is interesting to learn from, but the arrow points forward. God or not, you are created, to have you memories (nostalgia, fake, real, whatever) The fact that we are all who we make ourselves out to be, and all of our time is limited, is a more interesting read on the Unicorn origami/dream and the “Too Bad She Won’t Live….Then Again, Who Does?” (as a ghost-repetition (said by Edward James Olmos’ character earlier in the film) for final line to end the film, and the score is actually upbeat at this point, as if saying, keep on keeping on, real or replicant.

    This movie has vision, and I really dig the suggestion that Ford treats Sean Young’s android character as a fuck-toy (the strange and unusual sex scene, which in the end is far more HUMAN than android, actually, especially when she goes along with things after being tossed around a bit. Or maybe that is just male screenwriters) until realizing exactly what he is doing, and then actually makes a bit of effort at a connection rather than ‘ownership’. The film is sci-fi noir, and it is pretty damn magnificent. More importantly, the film has the power to EVOKE (For me anyway), and there is as much power in evoking the imagination as there is in getting character insight. If that is through production design, or conceptually, rather than ‘heart’ then so be it.

    I wonder what Faraci thinks about Synechdoce, NY.

    Blade Runner makes me dream, and any film that can make me dream is a good one.

  7. antho42

    I have a more positive take on Blade Runner than Devin Faraci. I love many elements of the film, but it could have been a masterpiece.

  8. Devin’s review is as shallow as he purports the film to be. It’s a long-winded way of saying that the film just didn’t connect with him – which is fine. Read it again. It really doesn’t say much of anything other than that. His points:

    1. The replicant design doesn’t make sense.
    2. It lacks emotion, heart, etc..
    3. The art direction is too well designed.
    4. Roy Batty is over the top.

    Those are the arguments that I pull from it and I really don’t see much of anything that is conclusive or even moderately convincing in his evidence. In fact, he really doesn’t provide much evidence other than saying that’s just how he feels about it. How does the film lack emotion specifically? What leaves him cold about the characters? His knock on the art design is that much of it seems to be “there to be cool” and his criticism of Roy Batty’s speech is a nonsensical comparison to Mork & Mindy, disregarding the context of the character and the moment altogether.

    I like Devin and it doesn’t bug me that he doesn’t like the film, but the review is a shallow critique at best.

  9. Ms Curious

    Have to agree with Jonathan B. When someone doesn’t actually get it, it’s much easier to dish it, which is exactly what Devin does in his review. Why though does he take so much time to get to no real point at all? It’s a grade school type of reivew, an ‘I didn’t like it because I didn’t like it’ which left me cold. No substance, no supporting evidence to sway us towards his argument and positions offered. The reader left asking and…your point is?

  10. A friend of mine pointed out they’ve already made a new movie based off the old Blade Runner. It’s called “every sci-fi movie since Blade Runner”. :-P

  11. Kurt Halfyard

    I could make a very solid argument that Michael Winterbottom’s CODE 46 is a very nice (if not quite as dystopic or grimy) version of BLADE RUNNER: (actually I already have: http://www.rowthree.com/2008/06/26/finite-focus-hits-50-special-double-focus-were-all-replicants-code-46/ )

  12. I think Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code) is also making a film inspired heavily by Blade Runner at the moment. If I also remember correctly, he says he is done making sci-fi’s after it (at least for a while).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


9 − = one

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>