Discussion in 'The Moving Picture' started by Rats Riley, Aug 19, 2011.
I was thrilled when I first heard about this. Blade Runner really is one of my favorite movies. I wonder how they'll handle it.
I find myself listening to the music from the end credits every so often. I'm planning on doing a Deckard costume sometime soon.
I love the Director's Cut too, btw.
Since its only the talking stage, I wonder when it would get made. he's been developing ForeverWar the last few years.
Forever War is a great book. A sort of Vietnam era version of Starship Troopers.
Incidentally, there are rumours that Harrison Ford is in talks for another Bladerunner, but there are statements that the Producers dont want him
I was initially horrifed when I heard about this, but got down off the ledge when I found out it was not a re-make, just a prequel or whatever. (whew, close one!)
Well, at least it's not a "remake"! But I have a hard time seeing this working out well. Are there any successful examples of "prequels"? Perhaps "Silence of the Lambs", although I consider "Manhunter" to be superior. "Young Indiana Jones"?
I know - since they are talking about remaking "1984", maybe they should do a prequel "1983"!
It's really too bad. Blade Runner, while not perfect, is a really great, singular film.
Of course, if Deckard is what we all believe, wouldn't the timeframe of the prequel rule him out? Unless as the "inspiration" for the "design"...
Temple was technically a prequel, being set in '35 (Raiders was in '36). I know it's the Indy that it's cool not to like, but it was a big hit (and the entry point for a lot of us who were just too young for Raiders when it came out... bearing in mind home video wasn't something many of us had in the early Eighties). I suppose too a lot depends on what you consider "successful" - I mean, George Lucas' Star Wars prequel efforts raked in several massive fortunes, but...
I think this could work. It's dangerous ground as it does have such a cult following and the original itself is such a well-known piece, but it is plausible. The main thing is whether they have the story and the resources to pull it off right. Alien Versus Predator is what can happen when you don't have anything more than a fanboy "wouldn't it be great if...", and you don't develop it into anything (of course, for my money, they also dragged down a great franchise (Alien by merging it with a vastly inferior one Predator). The big danger is that the studio demand a commercial picture which will sell well rather than something in-keeping with the original. I can see them casting Will Smith in a lead role, for example (I Robot, I am Legend taking him into that general sci-fi territory, sorta...). That would be a huge mistake, imo. The man can act when he has good material, but I really don't see him as being someone who can pull off noir. I'd like to see Johnny Depp as a maverick designer or replicant.
FYI, definitely not a PREQUEL:
New Blade Runner Movie is a Sequel, Features Same Writer & Director
Initially horrified at the prospect, I have some confidence based on the following:
1. Denis Villeneuve, Canadian director. Check out Sicario if you have not already done so.
2. Roger Deakins as cinematographer. Is there anything he hasn't made look magic?
3. Ryan Gosling, Canadian actor. Some don't get him, I do. And he's also Canadian.
Well, I'm glad to hear it's a sequel, and not a remake.
I love the music from Blade Runner. It's easily one of my most played soundtracks.
I'm hoping this goes ahead, it'd be interesting to see how they develop the story.
It also ties in with the possibility of resurrecting Indiana Jones. Do they do a remake with a new Indy, or continue the storyline with an older Indy, possibly mentoring a new apprentice?
I think, it would be great, to see the rise of the younger Dr. Eldon Tyrell and his business, before the mighty Tyrell-Corporation and it's Nexus-development.
Or the police-history until the creation of the Blade Runner-departments.
I remember reading this thread when it first started and feeling that I was afraid Bud Yorkin wouldn't make it to production. Typically these things take no less than 5 years and have only a single digit chance of actually being made even then ... no matter if they are a follow on to an iconic and successful film. Oh well ... He had a hell of a career.
Fancher wrote on the original Blade Runner, his credit here says "story" ... I'm not sure if that means the old adaptation or the plot line for this one. I'm struggling to remember WGA rules. Michael Green has done a lot of TV, some not so good but that is immaterial, you get a TON of practice in that job and you are only as good as the show's concept. Villeneuve is a good director, great at atmosphere and thus seemingly a good choice. There may be scads of other writers, I do remember that much. Not everyone gets a credit. I'm kind of concerned about Ford as he has seemed off his game for years but he was a fundamental of the original.
You mean the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1980s? Isn't that just Beverly Hills Cop?
A "prequel" will not work for Blade Runner, as it would all be set in our past. The suspension of disbelief would just not be there.
I know "Beverly Hills Cop", but I never saw it.
I think, the Replicant-story, so the Tyrell-Corporation, Tyrell himself, the blade runner-staff on LAPD, the mystery on sweet Rachael, the build of this semi-modernized megacities like L.A., 2019, got so much potential.
There may be a story there, but it's past the time to tell it. Roy Batty was "born" in January 2016, already in our past, so the Nexus 6 technology, not to mention previous version would have already been developed. It's one thing to make a movie and say "this is what technology will be like in 38 years" and it be completely beyond our experience, it's another to make a movie now and say "this is what technology was like in the 1980s" and it likewise be so far fetched. I just don't see that working.
I think it could work a la Watchmen, if they estavloshed an alternative timeline well enough.
As a work of fiction rather than prediction, I don't think most people would care that the "future" foreseen by the author/director didn't pan out.
Do people avoid watching the original BR film, or 2001/2010 Space Odyssey, or Back to the Future or any other sci-fi film of yesteryear, because the "future" didn't pan out per reality?
Indeed, most people just take it as part of the same sense of suspension of disbelief when they're watching an "old movie". I think you'd need to establish it a bit beforehand now if you were making a new film, but it wouldn't be hard.
People watch those movies out of nostalgia, and a good many to have a laugh about what didn't happen. I don't think that means people would be just as interested in seeing those films if they were first run today. Personally, I'd be interested in a film about a potential 2050 post-apocalyptic Los Angeles, but not one about an 1980s "alternative" one.
Separate names with a comma.