Blade Runner 2049
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Timmythekid
Sr Member
re: Blade Runner Sequel
<<ahem>> Noo. nnnnNNNNNOOOOOOOOOooo!!!!!!!
Please no Ford, because if he's there I know Scott is going to force the 'Deckard is a replicant!' statment back on me. I always try to pretend I never heard him say that as it's just so damn on the nose for something which should be completely ambiguous.
In fact, stating that Deckard is a replicant seems to me to defeat part of the storytelling - if Deckard is a replicant, then it's a story about psychotic robots killing each other. If we don't know, but it's possible that Rick is not what he seems to be then it's a story about what our humanity actually means, what makes us who we are, and questioning our own sense of self. Er...killing each other. It says that it doesn't matter what our genesis is, our humanity is something else entirely separate.
But more of the world of BR? Yes please.
<<ahem>> Noo. nnnnNNNNNOOOOOOOOOooo!!!!!!!
Please no Ford, because if he's there I know Scott is going to force the 'Deckard is a replicant!' statment back on me. I always try to pretend I never heard him say that as it's just so damn on the nose for something which should be completely ambiguous.
In fact, stating that Deckard is a replicant seems to me to defeat part of the storytelling - if Deckard is a replicant, then it's a story about psychotic robots killing each other. If we don't know, but it's possible that Rick is not what he seems to be then it's a story about what our humanity actually means, what makes us who we are, and questioning our own sense of self. Er...killing each other. It says that it doesn't matter what our genesis is, our humanity is something else entirely separate.
But more of the world of BR? Yes please.
Solo4114
Master Member
re: Blade Runner Sequel
Well, if he IS a replicant, it'd make no sense because he'd have aged rather considerably, which would imply not only the "Deckard is a replicant!" storyline, but also the "happy ending" from the theatrical release rather than the final cut.
Frankly, I think a Blade Runner sequel -- a true sequel about the same characters, mind you -- is ***king idiotic. Telling more stories in that world, yeah, that's kinda cool (although there's already Soldier which was....so-so...ok, actually it was pretty lame), but even so, does it need to overtly be stated that it's the same universe? Why not simply tell a story in a cyberpunk setting that doesn't tie you in to the Blade Runner universe?
I'll tell you why.
Branding. Again.
Well, if he IS a replicant, it'd make no sense because he'd have aged rather considerably, which would imply not only the "Deckard is a replicant!" storyline, but also the "happy ending" from the theatrical release rather than the final cut.
Frankly, I think a Blade Runner sequel -- a true sequel about the same characters, mind you -- is ***king idiotic. Telling more stories in that world, yeah, that's kinda cool (although there's already Soldier which was....so-so...ok, actually it was pretty lame), but even so, does it need to overtly be stated that it's the same universe? Why not simply tell a story in a cyberpunk setting that doesn't tie you in to the Blade Runner universe?
I'll tell you why.
Branding. Again.
cayman shen
Master Member
re: Blade Runner Sequel
To everyone involved in this atrocity: **** all of you. That is all.
To everyone involved in this atrocity: **** all of you. That is all.
Timmythekid
Sr Member
re: Blade Runner Sequel
Thinking about it further - nah. It exists as a magnificent cumulation of budgetary restrictions, anguished production cycle, ideas then out of the public conciousness, and a frustrated, lost star. They're never going to recapture the surreal, dreamy magic that amounted to again.
And, Cayman, F.U. to Ridley too? If anyone was going to attempt it, I'd prefer it be him.
Thinking about it further - nah. It exists as a magnificent cumulation of budgetary restrictions, anguished production cycle, ideas then out of the public conciousness, and a frustrated, lost star. They're never going to recapture the surreal, dreamy magic that amounted to again.
And, Cayman, F.U. to Ridley too? If anyone was going to attempt it, I'd prefer it be him.
re: Blade Runner Sequel
This could be good,but let me say this first:Blade Runner is NOT an action movie,think back to the old detective films and how slow paced they were,now set it in a cyber punk future and you have the world of BR.
I've always said a film set ten-twenty years after the first where people in charge find out the replicants based on Tyrell's niece are not only mixing in with humans seamlessly but are breeding with them could make a hell of a story.
If Scott's in on it it should work.
This could be good,but let me say this first:Blade Runner is NOT an action movie,think back to the old detective films and how slow paced they were,now set it in a cyber punk future and you have the world of BR.
I've always said a film set ten-twenty years after the first where people in charge find out the replicants based on Tyrell's niece are not only mixing in with humans seamlessly but are breeding with them could make a hell of a story.
If Scott's in on it it should work.
re: Blade Runner Sequel
Apparently Bryant's line, "I need the OLD bladerunner... I need your magic" has been taken TOO literally. :sleep
Apparently Bryant's line, "I need the OLD bladerunner... I need your magic" has been taken TOO literally. :sleep
re: Blade Runner Sequel
That's exactly what I'm afraid of. Also in the tradition of "Bishop" in Alien 3.
That's exactly what I'm afraid of. Also in the tradition of "Bishop" in Alien 3.
Mr Webber
Master Member
re: Blade Runner Sequel
Exciting news this.Im thinking that SRS holds the original with great pride and would do everything within his power to make it work, if it doesnt work, so what, it wont lesson the original for me, Star Wars is a great example of that.I would take opportunity to see some new BR universe work from its creator balanced with the fact the film falls flat any day of the week.
Although its not my preferred storyline, offworld is what i want to see, the return of Deckard could happen as he is a special model like Rachael with no set life span which could infer that he and she also ages.
Exciting news this.Im thinking that SRS holds the original with great pride and would do everything within his power to make it work, if it doesnt work, so what, it wont lesson the original for me, Star Wars is a great example of that.I would take opportunity to see some new BR universe work from its creator balanced with the fact the film falls flat any day of the week.
Although its not my preferred storyline, offworld is what i want to see, the return of Deckard could happen as he is a special model like Rachael with no set life span which could infer that he and she also ages.
cayman shen
Master Member
re: Blade Runner Sequel
Especially to Ridley! An artist risking (and likely succeeding in) sullying a masterpiece with a (almost inevitably inferior) second installment? He should know better. Hopefully BR won't become the Ender's Game of film: a brilliant, beloved original with a series of increasingly wtf? cash grab sequels. Book 18: Ender and Harry Potter vs. the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In Kindle 3D!
Vomit.
Especially to Ridley! An artist risking (and likely succeeding in) sullying a masterpiece with a (almost inevitably inferior) second installment? He should know better. Hopefully BR won't become the Ender's Game of film: a brilliant, beloved original with a series of increasingly wtf? cash grab sequels. Book 18: Ender and Harry Potter vs. the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In Kindle 3D!
Vomit.
re: Blade Runner Sequel
We have that, it did, and it's called Appleseed.
What on EARTH could possibly lead you to that conclusion? BR was a fluke, it wasn't the film ANYONE wanted to make, or thought they were making.
You've read the Sammon stuff, right?
We have that, it did, and it's called Appleseed.
What on EARTH could possibly lead you to that conclusion? BR was a fluke, it wasn't the film ANYONE wanted to make, or thought they were making.
You've read the Sammon stuff, right?
Solo4114
Master Member
re: Blade Runner Sequel
Also Ronald D. Moore's Battlestar Galactica.
And I suppose if they make it, I'll just do what I've taken to doing with other beloved franchises that release what are sure to be sub-par subsequent outings:
I simply refuse to acknowledge their existence lest it sully my own enjoyment of the original(s).
Some may find that daft, but all I can say is that when I see a crappy sequel or prequel or "interquel" or whatever, it lessens my enjoyment of the original. I can't explain it, I know it's irrational, but it happens. So, I've taken to simply refusing to acknowledge that these films exist and then I just don't see them (which, you know, makes refusing to acknowledge they exist a lot easier).
Indiana Jones? A trilogy.
Blade Runner? A fantastic sci-fi noir film. With no sequels. Ever.
Sadly, I can't do this for: The Matrix, the Star Wars OT, Alien/Aliens, nor Highlander. I cannot "unsee" the inferior subsequent entries into those film franchises.
So, if they make this film, I'm gonna chalk it up to Harrison Ford continuing to have bizarre dreams of being in sequels to films from his glory days, then waking up in a cold sweat and saying "Thank GOD I never agreed to star in that POS."
Also Ronald D. Moore's Battlestar Galactica.
And I suppose if they make it, I'll just do what I've taken to doing with other beloved franchises that release what are sure to be sub-par subsequent outings:
I simply refuse to acknowledge their existence lest it sully my own enjoyment of the original(s).
Some may find that daft, but all I can say is that when I see a crappy sequel or prequel or "interquel" or whatever, it lessens my enjoyment of the original. I can't explain it, I know it's irrational, but it happens. So, I've taken to simply refusing to acknowledge that these films exist and then I just don't see them (which, you know, makes refusing to acknowledge they exist a lot easier).
Indiana Jones? A trilogy.
Blade Runner? A fantastic sci-fi noir film. With no sequels. Ever.
Sadly, I can't do this for: The Matrix, the Star Wars OT, Alien/Aliens, nor Highlander. I cannot "unsee" the inferior subsequent entries into those film franchises.
So, if they make this film, I'm gonna chalk it up to Harrison Ford continuing to have bizarre dreams of being in sequels to films from his glory days, then waking up in a cold sweat and saying "Thank GOD I never agreed to star in that POS."
Noeland
Master Member
re: Blade Runner Sequel
I've read the Sammon stuff. He holds Ridley Scott in high regard. Blade Runner was the film RIDLEY wanted to make. He had to fight for it, but it was not a fluke. He's made some genre defining films in his career.
Personally, I have no problem with the sequel happening. I think it could be quite good.
I've read the Sammon stuff. He holds Ridley Scott in high regard. Blade Runner was the film RIDLEY wanted to make. He had to fight for it, but it was not a fluke. He's made some genre defining films in his career.
Personally, I have no problem with the sequel happening. I think it could be quite good.
re: Blade Runner Sequel
From the business perspective.........
If you were a studio head today, given what appeals to audiences now, would you greenlight a sequal to a film made 30 years ago the profits of which were sorely lackluster even with big expensive FX and a huge star back then to bring in the audience back then?
It has basically had mostly cult interest since from the film and sci fi crowd.
If something does actually get made, I think it will be a very different animal.
It's not a secret..... Blade Runner puts many people to sleep. It's never been for everyone.
I could see a low budget business model working though. The style and story type of BR is audience specific and that can be targeted but....
Does anyone think that is going to happen?
From the business perspective.........
If you were a studio head today, given what appeals to audiences now, would you greenlight a sequal to a film made 30 years ago the profits of which were sorely lackluster even with big expensive FX and a huge star back then to bring in the audience back then?
It has basically had mostly cult interest since from the film and sci fi crowd.
If something does actually get made, I think it will be a very different animal.
It's not a secret..... Blade Runner puts many people to sleep. It's never been for everyone.
I could see a low budget business model working though. The style and story type of BR is audience specific and that can be targeted but....
Does anyone think that is going to happen?
Solo4114
Master Member
re: Blade Runner Sequel
From a business perspective, you've also got to consider the notion of "Everything from the 80s must be optioned at least, so that we can maybe choose to make a film about it later."
80s nostalgia drives a lot of what seems to be made anymore. If you can repackage that nostalgia with modern f/x and modern film stupidity, you can market it to the 12-25 male demographic. The brand name will be familiar, so you can get people to at least take a second look at it. But it will also be new enough to the youngsters that they won't be bored with a rehash.
Also, I think studios have figured out that fans of films/film franchises are basically little better than drug addicts. They know the experience won't be that high they first had, but they can't...turn....away. They HAVE to go see the film merely because you slapped "2" after their favorite film (or "4", etc.). This also applies to people who grew up with a particular franchise. They cannot and will not turn their nose up at the film, no matter how many ranting posts they let fly on the internet.
J.J. Abrams knew this and capitalized on it. George Lucas knows it and regularly capitalizes on it. The producers of G.I. Joe, the Transformers, and any number of the other myriad remakes, adaptations, etc. know this and capitalize on it.
Now, with Blade Runner, I think it's not as strong of a brand as others, but it does have a cult following. I think it'd be a medium risk, but I'd figure the question would be what would they do differently with the film to grab in a wider audience, and then how risky was some other project that the studio was considering which DIDN'T have the benefit of the Blade Runner "brand." Or maybe they'd combine the two, which I tend to think they do regularly: take an otherwise nondescript boring screenplay and fold in existing IP to make it marketable.
See what they did with the first G.I. Joe movie which, if it had been called "U.S. Commandos: Above and Beyond" or whathaveyou, wouldn't have made nearly half the money it did.
From a business perspective, you've also got to consider the notion of "Everything from the 80s must be optioned at least, so that we can maybe choose to make a film about it later."
80s nostalgia drives a lot of what seems to be made anymore. If you can repackage that nostalgia with modern f/x and modern film stupidity, you can market it to the 12-25 male demographic. The brand name will be familiar, so you can get people to at least take a second look at it. But it will also be new enough to the youngsters that they won't be bored with a rehash.
Also, I think studios have figured out that fans of films/film franchises are basically little better than drug addicts. They know the experience won't be that high they first had, but they can't...turn....away. They HAVE to go see the film merely because you slapped "2" after their favorite film (or "4", etc.). This also applies to people who grew up with a particular franchise. They cannot and will not turn their nose up at the film, no matter how many ranting posts they let fly on the internet.
J.J. Abrams knew this and capitalized on it. George Lucas knows it and regularly capitalizes on it. The producers of G.I. Joe, the Transformers, and any number of the other myriad remakes, adaptations, etc. know this and capitalize on it.
Now, with Blade Runner, I think it's not as strong of a brand as others, but it does have a cult following. I think it'd be a medium risk, but I'd figure the question would be what would they do differently with the film to grab in a wider audience, and then how risky was some other project that the studio was considering which DIDN'T have the benefit of the Blade Runner "brand." Or maybe they'd combine the two, which I tend to think they do regularly: take an otherwise nondescript boring screenplay and fold in existing IP to make it marketable.
See what they did with the first G.I. Joe movie which, if it had been called "U.S. Commandos: Above and Beyond" or whathaveyou, wouldn't have made nearly half the money it did.
