EXCLUSIVE: After revisiting his classic Alien with the upcoming 3D Fox film Prometheus, Ridley Scott is committing to direct and produce a film that advances his other seminal and groundbreaking science fiction film from the past. Scott has signed on to direct and produce a new installment of Blade Runner. He’ll make the film with Alcon Entertainment, producing with Alcon partners Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove. This would be the most high profile project for Alcon since The Blind Side. They got control of the franchise earlier this year, but it’s a whole different ballgame with Scott at the helm.
I’m not getting a clear sense at this point whether Scott intends to do a sequel or a prequel to the 1982 film that was loosely based on the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Also unclear is whether they start fresh or reach out to Harrison Ford. The original took place in dystopian Los Angeles in 2019, in which organic superhuman robots called replicants escaped and are hiding somewhere on earth. Ford played Richard Deckard, a burnt out blade runner assigned to hunt them down. His tired life gets altered when he himself falls for one of the replicants and struggles to keep her from being destroyed.
The film was not a blockbuster when first released–it grossed $32 million in its original run–but the film has gained esteem over time. From the bleak but breathtaking visuals to the complex storyline and themes of mortality, Blade Runner became a classic. There has periodically been talks of doing a sequel but those never really went anywhere. After injecting state of the art 3D in reviving Alien, imagine what Scott can do with Blade Runner? Now, the filmmaker is ready to engage. Alcon has its output deal with Warner Bros, which remastered and released a 25th anniversary version on DVD and Blu-Ray in 2007. Warner Bros made the original film.
This is just the first step and the project will have to be written and it will likely evolve during that process. That’s what happened on Alien, which began as a prequel to his 1979 classic. That changed when Lost‘s Damon Lindelof came in with a different take on the subject matter that imprinted on Scott and Fox executives. They wound up making Prometheus, which Fox considers an original but which I’ve heard is a cousin to the original Alien franchise. That film will be released June 8, 2012, with Charlize Theron, Michael Fassbender, Noomi Rapace, Patrick Wilson, Idris Elba and Guy Pearce starring. Scott is repped by WME.
Here is the original Blade Runner trailer:
there is no need for more blade runner. Just develop new movies not based on something from the past
I’m sorry. I’m not following you. What do you mean? Do you want me to remake movies that have just come out?
Actually, that’s not a bad idea. Note to self: Next pitch meeting pitch remake of Rise of the Planet of the Apes.
Spoken like a true movie exec!
No, we need something more fresh. How about a remake of Tim Burton’s sequel to Alice in Wonderland? We’ll hire Tim Burton to direct. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter can be the starring cast, and we’ll have Danny Elfman make the soundtrack.
you’re a moron
*whooosh* -that’s the sound of a joke flying over your head.
shut up, it was funny!
“No, we need something more fresh. How about a remake of Tim Burton’s sequel to Alice in Wonderland? We’ll hire Tim Burton to direct. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter can be the starring cast, and we’ll have Danny Elfman make the soundtrack.” How about a totally *new* movie that has never been made before? Or is new writing s thing of the psst for Amerericans?
Do you have any concept of time? Any point in time that happens before the present is the past. The past is the past, whether it’s one nanosecond before or a millennia before. Not only did you come off as swarmy, you also sound really stupid.
Speaking of stupid, you do realize that was a joke, right? Apparently we have discovered who today’s movies are made for. People like you without any sense of sarcasm or subtlety.
dude, “Drudge Report” linked to this story – trust me – they ARE that stupid.
Hollywood isn’t imaginative enough anymore to come up with something NEW and unique. They are lazy. It’s much easier to remake something than to come up with something fresh and new. I know it’s not easy to come up with exciting new ideas, but that’s why they get paid the BIG bucks. Anyone could think of an old movie and say, “Let’s remake Taxi Driver where the protagonist goes after leftwing politicians instead of pimps (not that there is much of a difference)”. Hey….that’s a damn good idea! The country will stand up and cheer. Here’s my invoice for $15,000 for that idea.
Hollywood lost it’s creative drive since they allowed it to be totally taken over by the old man ‘thong’ brigade.
I agree with you, Rachel. But there is one more factor to consider: the C.E.O.’s who make these decision know that a sequel (or prequel) will earn about 70% what the original took in. With original scripts, there are no guarantees. This happens when oil execs start telling filmmakers what to do. My only hope is that Ridley realizes there are still a film or two worth of material in “Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep,” and I hope he uses it.
When Mike Ock wrote: “Do you have any concept of time? Any point in time that happens before the present is the past. The past is the past, whether it’s one nanosecond before or a millennia before. Not only did you come off as swarmy, you also sound really stupid”, I think he meant to say ‘smarmy’, rather than ‘swarmy’. Unless he’ shooting for a new word, which could present a new pasttime.
You don’t have enough imagination. We need to start the ball rolling on remaking movies currently still in development. Once that has been done, we can move onto concurrently creating both the original movie and its remake, and then, finally, we can remake a movie that hasn’t even been conceived of yet, only later bothering with producing the original.
And then we can start concurrently producing studio, director’s, and international cuts of sequels for these films, featuring unfilmed scenes that would have been cut from the original had the scenes actually been filmed.
From there we can produced DVD commentary tracks for films that are not only unconcieved as of yet, but also will never be filmed at all. The commentaries would be recorded by directors and actors that would have rejected the project had they been offered the film.
Remaking a movie that has not been made yet – not deep enough. 2001 A Space Odessey was a film adaptation of a book that had not yet been written. The book was written after the film. The remake of 2001 should have come before both 2001 AND the book. My head is spinning.
2001 was based on Arthur Clarke’s short story, THE SENTINAL published in 1951, any year before 2001 was done. Kubrick and Clarke collaborated on both he screenplay and a new novel based on the movie. It’s been said that it wasn’t a pleasant experiance for Clarke.
I agree. Make the prequel BEFORE the actual movie and concurrent with the sequel(s). Leave the actual movie till last and release it just after the sequel(s). That will really have them dancing in the aisles. Oh, and take 3-D shots of Harrison Ford from every possible angle doing every possible action, get him to read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica to a camera so you have his mouth saying practically every word ever spoken so you can CGI him into any movie you want, for eternity.
well, you guys did that with the hulk!
I’m a movie executive, Goddamnit! You want someone with imagination you need to hire one of those “creative” types. And they don’t wear suits as good as mine!
I do like your idea, though. Send me a list of all the movies in development and circle the ones that will be big hits so I can remake them. PRONTO!
Actually, movie exec, it’s you who needs to hire one of those “creative types.” You know, the ones who struggle to scare up enough money to make (rather than re-make) potentially great films?
That suit may be fancy, but don’t forget, you traded your soul for it. Was it worth it?
As for lists of circled next big hits, you might check out these things called film festivals for new and often high quality storytelling and low-mid level production…thankfully not choice for the premature ejaculation of your cineplex domain.
If you haven’t noticed, non-formulaic young filmmakers are in proliferation with fresh ideas, and sans the early onset of dementia you’re probably used to trying to manage. Though unfortunately for you, not all of them would be good puppets. The issue is that your money people and studio heads don’t have the cojones to invest in anything that hasn’t been completely exhausted.
I say to that, go ahead and invest some subatomic pittance of your load on something fresh. What’s the real cost after all, with your one foot in the grave? Do your kids a favor and do at least one thing that comes from a place of substance before you croak.
“Rise of the planet of the apes” was never one of the titles in the early franchise.
I think we should remake Spider Man. The Andrew Garfield version is stale by now, and I think a new actor could provide a fresh take on the character.
Better yet, we should remake Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. The Producers shows that Hollywood can remake a Broadway remake of a Hollywood movie. And as for Turn Off the Dark….”Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. Unlike Broadway, we have the technology.”
I have a treatment in my desk drawer right now. Let’s lunch.
stop remaking classics and start making new ”classics”, square softs final fantasy games can be made into epic movies, the cg is there to make it work
They already tried that with FF7 Advent Children and another one, but I don’t think they did very well.
Ridley…you are going to be 74 years old in two months.
This is REALLY how you want to go out? Remaking your classic films? God what a total disappointment.
Signed,
A true former fan.
Would you rather have him end his career with Robin Hood?
Yes.
YES!!!
No!!
But S.A.C.D’s “The White Company”/ “Sir Nigel” would be right down his alley.
No, I’d prefer he and Russel make a sequel to Robin Hood Begins so we can get the rest of the story.
only if it’s in tights…
This is not just Ridley making what many feel are bad decisions. Several well established, but older directors, seem to be no longer challenged as storytellers. Spielberg will do Jurassic 4 or 5 or whatever; Ron Howard wants to do Spy vs Spy; Clint Eastwood is doing A Star is Born; and, on and on.
One would think all of these folks have plenty of money so let’s discount this as motivation…and, so these must be personal choices…but why?
I don’t get it. Is this some kind of disease which attacks senior citizen filmmakers?
Two answer the question “What is their motivation”.
Consider that almost all science fiction movies made in the last century had primitive special effects compared to what can be accomplished today, and the fact that there is a new generation of young people that have never seen the movies and never truly grasp their cutting edge nature in the time they were released, and therefore would probably not ever see them if they were not remade. All of these producers and directors have the ability to go back and have a second crack at realizing their vision they had for the movie they wanted to make, but watched it end up in large part on the cutting room floor. I say let them re-make their movies and let the movie goers vote with their ticket purhcases.
Who gives a shit whether the “young people” can understand the nature of the original. Their loss. Spoiled little brats.
Lazy assed filmmakers redoing lame movies now. Footloose? Really? Why not re-do Flashdance. Crap. Swill. Pap for ignorant liberal masses. That d-bag Russell Crowe said it best in (Ridley Scott’s) Gladiator, “Are you not entertained?”
“Consider that almost all science fiction movies made in the last century had primitive special effects compared to what can be accomplished today”
Good Point! Can’t wait for Attack of the Killer Tomatoes Redux.
Snooky want smoosh, smoosh.
A great film is based on the quality of the story and the acting and the script, not so much in special effects. Not that there is anything wrong with special effects, they are great. But too many movies rely on them and lose the more important aspects of a good film. And that is a turn-off.
Actually Blade Runner looks better than most “effects” movies half its age because it used models rather than CGI.
Oh right, that must be why people preferred Star Wars episodes 1-3 to that old, primitive set. In fact, when I watch Empire Strikes Back or Raiders of the Lost Ark, I just think to myself “I just can’t get past it. Why can’t it look more like Crystal Skull?”
Sorry, but post-production aside, you don’t really get it, do you?
I agree with Mike. Models are far more effective than CGI.
In response to Wall_St:
Oh right, that must be why people preferred Star Wars episodes 1-3 to that old, primitive set. In fact, when I watch Empire Strikes Back or Raiders of the Lost Ark, I just think to myself “I just can’t get past it. Why can’t it look more like Crystal Skull?”
Sorry, but post-production aside, you don’t really get it, do you?
No studio seems to want to go ahead with original, untested material. These last several years appear to be the dark ages of hollywood filmmaking.
I agree. There seems to be a fear of risk.
there has always been a fear of risk – it is a business
… but the real reason is the executives now are the Gen-X and Gen-Y who largely don’t understand storytelling and have not read many books … most went to film school, or learned it at home from mommy and daddy since there’s so much nepotism in the business, but they understand that you need a car crash by page 25, show some tits by page 60, and put your movie together as a package deal with an agency to bundle talent
Gen-X and Gen-Y in America at least have no point-of-view, no politics, and, hence, nothing to say … so anyone is surprised that they want to make Gilligan’s Island ?
Radii:
What planet are you from?
How many EXECS do you know who are of gen x and y?
The problem is actually the people with the money, who control the wealth, who happen to be the baby boomer generation.
It is the combination of greed, Narcissism, irresponsibility, and delusion of a generation who never had to struggle that has brought us to this climate.
Okay, let’s talk about hard work and strife.
Boomers never even had to take standardized tests to get into college, let alone pay $20,000 for a year’s tuition.
Gone are the days when some drug-hazed slacker like Timothy Leary can become a professor at Berkeley and lecturer at Harvard.
You want your kids to move out of the garage? Then, stop getting unpaid interns, outsourcing to 2nd and 3rd world countries, and RETIRE already.
Straight from an X-er on the Y cusp, does that constitute “something” to say?
P.S. Go see Beasts of the Southern Wild…..then I think you will STFU. The director, co-write, co-composer is 28 and his principal crew are Gen Y.
everyone knows there are just 200 ideas in Hollywood. Sad to hear about b Runner…one of my top faves and a masterrpiece….
I do agree there are too many remakes. There’s a hell of a lot of books and other IP that are ripe for adaptation. Seems like the young new directors are the ones with the cahonis to try new things, often with shockingly low budgets (Paranormal Phenomena comes to mind — I have little trouble imagining some exec responding to the pitch with “That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard all year. Put down that coffee and go away.”
Yeah, I would really like to see a movie based on the book _The Life of Pi_. That would be so much more interesting than a Gilligan’s Island remake, geez!
I thought ron howard was working on the dark tower … you know, movies – tv series hybrid … or did the execs kill that too?
It could be worse, he could sign onto movies with amazing scripts like Nottingham and completely rework the project into something average. We need to beg him to retire with some of his legacy intact.
Ridley is not stupid… he sunk his teeth into this to protect his own legacy. I can’t imagine he was going to stand by and let someone else remake/distort his baby. I also expect this film will never actually get made now. Kudos to Ridley for making the right play.
meh. It worked for Alfred Hitchcock.
Come on Ridley,
Clearly, you were never a real fan. Any true fan of the genius, yes genius who created Alien, Black Hawk Down, Thelma and Louise and yes…Kingdom of Heaven would understand the potential magic of revisiting Blade Runner. There were some stinkers but also some pure art. 1984 Apple Computer? Not sure if you were around for the Channel #5 Commercial…perfection!
By the way…age is nothing but a number…
John Huston 79 Prizzi’s Honor
David Lean 76 A Passage to India
Woody Allen…the list goes on.
But suppose it is the BEST version of Blade Runner. We wouldn’t want him to check out before perfecting it would we?
There are still tons of unmoviefied sci fi stories and novels lying around which with some work could be the big sci fi movie hits of the future. A good one would be a story about a producer who made remakes of movies not yet made or released. I suppose he would have time machine so he could go into the future to watch the biggest hits then come back to his own time to create the “remake” He gets tripped up by playing the stock market based on what he read in the paper while in the future. But since he makes the remake movie the future changes and the sure thing stocks he bet on failed.
Amen to that!
More proof that Hollywood is washed-up as far as screen writers go. There are plenty of novels out there, and true-to-life adventures and yet, Hollywood insists on rewrites and remakes. Is there not one writer that has an “original” idea that hasn’t been done before?
Of course we all know it is about money. It is cheaper to produce remakes of older movies than it is to start with a new, original idea.
This is why I do not go to movies anymore. Much like the so-called reality television—the entertainment aspect has gone out the window and it has become nothing more than a numbers game, but as long as you have a new generation of mindless, can’t think for themselves, idiots who are willing to pay the phenominal prices to go see garbage flicks these days, more power to Hollywood. Sorry, but on +$55 for my family to go see a movie, we can go do something that is physically, mentally, and generally overall healthy and fun for that price.
Ahhhhh, if only we had the good’ol days when they made movies that that were worth their weight in the name of entertainment. Too bad, so sad it has become nonexistant.
Gee, that’s what I want to be when I growup as an actor, a name that is associated with remakes.
There are hundreds of good writers with great new ideas in Hollywood- but the system does not allow fresh ideas into the game. It’s all about maximum marketability of already proven Intellectual Property, developed by a small circle of “go to” scribes the producers trust- in other words, executives covering their ass if something flops by claiming “well, it was based on the best selling breakfast cereal of all time, it’s not MY fault” and so on- not about finding new ideas. So don’t blame the writers.
And don’t forget all the costumes are already made for remakes. Wonder how much the current Planet of Apes movie saved by not needing new costumes?
While I agree movies are generally a waste of money anymore…what exactly can you do with a family of 4 or 5 for $55. ?
I took my kids to the beach hiked on rocks and basically did a super-budget style day, excluding gasoline I spent over $100 just feeding and providing water for them and me for the day. Didnt get any t-shirts or cheap throw away kites…Just parent with kids at beach.
$55 isnt crap…and THATS why people go to see movies.
For $15 we take some soda (pre-bought) and ice (from fridge icemaker), and some sunscreen, go to a state park, hike, swim, frisbee; unpack Apples to Apples (card/board game) and make a day of it. OR, we go to the cheap theater $1.50/each and skip the $25 popcorn. Or we stay at home, make our own popcorn, and rent a movie (store or netflix or redbox), invite family over, play some games. Dunno how you spent $100 on water (you can take your own, you know); get some granola bars from Walmart (inexpensive, don’t melt). You can do an amazing amount of stuff if you do not need to spend money to feel good. We do NOT pay $15 per ticket to see a movie. And we do NOT subscribe to cable – no sense paying a company to put crap on our tv that we have to take time to deprogram from the kids. Hollywood can suck an egg. There WAS life before 1900, you know, before Hollywood.
Amen, Ralph. Anyone who can’t figure out how to entertain themselves and their kids for under $100 isn’t putting any thought or planning into it. Like bringing a picnic lunch instead of overpaying for bad beach food.
Christ, why anyone buys junk at movie concessions is beyond me. I always take my own snacks and a bottle of water into the theater with me.
Right on brother, thinking of canceling cable TV myself. I can rent allot of movies for all that money that goes to fund hollywood and save myself 20 minutes of crap every hour in advertisements.
“There WAS life before 1900, you know, before Hollywood.” But it was dim dingy and B&W. See Over the Rainbow starting scene. Hollywood IS Oz.
Life sucked pretty bad before 1900. In addition to all the neat things like I-Pods and cell phones they didnt have before 1900,if you wanted to hear music,someone had to play it for you,and you were likely to die from small pox or end of crippled by polio. Children died of dysentary,if you had a heart attack,you pretty much were as good,the same is if you had a simple infection that can be cured today with antibiotics. The good old days were not so good.
“what exactly can you do with a family of 4 or 5 for $55. ?” Roast them and serve with plain white bread and a cheap white wine? Movies are expensive with all the trimmings but so is everything else so I don’t mind. And I wait for them to come out on DVD and rent them from NEtflix anyhow to wathc at home where I can stuff everyone with cheap home made popcorn rather than the overpriced stuff that they sell in the theaters. Technology is grand barring the problem elucidated in Blade runner. ANd I don’t see replicants as a big problem. I wish someone would replicate me and send him out to make money for me. At least for a while.
Remaking other people’s stories worked for Shakespeare.
POST OF THE WEEK!!!!!
I’m not as concerned about the remake, but rather the fact that 99% of remakes suck really bad.
With that said, compared to all the other remakes, at least the original director brings a little hope that this won’t suck like everything else.
Part of me wants him to leave it alone. But the other part thinks, maybe it will be OK. Not exactly sure how I feel.
Whatever you do, please don’t screw it up like everyone else has done.
I don’t blame Ridley, he can now, take those quasi HORRID matte painting in ze background and bring the ENTIRE city with it’s lovely hovercars and Mile high buildings (so high it rains constantly) to LIFE…and it’s not another bloke making the film, it is the MAN behind the HELM..perhaps they could even show the escape in deep space or some of the shite ROY says he’s seen in one of the final (and deeply touching) ending scenes, where he finally expired, etc. SO to the haters and nay sayers I SAY give RIDLEY and CHANCE and BE AWFUL glad he’s not handing to anyone else..this could prove to be an UTTER SMASH, especially if somehow ingrained the loss of all REAL animals on earth and the voight-comp, BLUSH test, relating directly to that loss – thus the title DO ANDROIDS DREAM of ELECTRIC sheep, eluding to the question do humans dream of REAL animals now that they’re extinct, ALL OF THEM..and I mean ALL of them…so it could be a better explaination…plus, ROY in the book is FUNNY, so are most of the players…anyway, just me O PINE YON. BEEYATCH…smack, theyre now git with it.
Seems like the original movie made you imagine all of these “missing” scenes you’ve mentioned… so I guess it’s already done it’s job.
No need for a remake…..
Hard to beat the original, IMHO. But a sequel could be interesting. Lots of places to go with it.
That makes sense. I guess making the latest x men movie is a waste of time. Who needs blockbusters with recurring story lines in a down economy with geniuses like you around?
Hollywood has no more original ideas!!!! By 2016 they will remake the Spider Man reboot and Reboot the Batman remakes!!!
You cant remake perfection. Prequel or sequel
A lot of comments assume this will be a remake. Whether it is or isn’t, Ridley Scott would not be the first or last director to remake one of his own films. Hitchcock remade one of his own films, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and Cecil B DeMille remade The Ten Commandments (1923 & 1956).
I can see a few good reasons why Scott would want to direct a sequel or re-imagined version of the original film. As the article suggests, it would allow him to expand on his 1982 vision using current filmmaking technology and techniques, and I see nothing wrong with that. It is, after all, his film. Who would be better-suited to make a sequel or remake the same story?
Obviously, Ridley is very fond of Blade Runner, or he would not have made several re-issues, including the Director’s Cut and unrated Criterion version. It may be, like others have suggested, that he wants to retain control over his own filmmaking legacy, and not let someone else ruin it. I think that makes perfect sense.
If Ridley Scott wants to make a ‘sequel’ to Blade Runner, isn’t that his prerogative? Why should he care if someone wants him to or not? There’s no script yet, no casting, nothing to go on. So be patient, and save your judgement for later.
He’s a filmmaker who wants to explore that incredible universe again, so what’s not to like? Having seen the Comic Con footage of Promethius (the ‘follow-up’ to Alien), which was incredible, I am very eager to see what he can do for Blade Runner!
I don’t think this should be compared to other recent remakes.
They left “Bladerunner” with an open ending, so I think it’s great to make a sequel, not a remake. Your right swanseajack, you can’t remake perfection. They just don’t write movies like that anymore. They’re isn’t the patience that they had back then. It’s all about the special effects now and not the writing. Bladerunner is a classic.
Ridley totally messed up the original with his “Directors Cut”. Do we still get to see the stupid Unicorn Dream Sequence? What crap. Give it to someone new. Do the prequel and I’ll be first in line.
I second your comment! First, there is nothing wrong with the original Blade Runner. Second, I think a lot of people are getting tired of remakes of older movies. I love Blade Runner, but I have NO desire to see the remake. It’s like being a McDonald’s fry lover – the more McDonald’s tries to reinvent their new fries, you miss the old original fries that much more.
There is a total need for MORE Bladerunner… there has been need for more Bladerunner for 2 decades now. The negativity we see in these posts is driven by the performance of those who made the Star Wars prequels, Indiana Jones 4, etc. etc. And this isn’t a remake… it’s said to be another story in the same universe. Might be the same characters. Might not be. And re-telling stories is as old as the art of storytelling itself. So even it it is to be a remake… so freaking what?!?
That’s right, Sean. Nothing should be based on anything. Blade Runner should be allowed to stand alone in its own succe…
Wait…
What?
It was based on a story?
Oh. Nevermind, then.
If you don’t like or have never seen Blade Runner then you’re not entitled to comment because you’re obviously not seeing the forest for the trees. Seriously.
The first time I saw Blade Runner in theaters it impressed upon me what groundbreaking cinema it was and still is to this day. So much so that years later a professor in college even made it the center of discussion in an art 101 course I used to tutor for.
Not only was the film a cinematic feast of ingenious directing, but the Blade Runner world is vast and rich with story telling potential.
By the way my girlfriend and I just watched Transformers-Revenge of the Fallen last night and we both had visceral reactions of disgust. What a horrible piece of crap and utter waste of time. Michael Bay makes truly trash-can films.
It will be refreshing to see what Scott can do with Prometheus and Blade Runner.
Bravo, Ridley Scott!
BR’s rights were tied up in legal hassles for 30 years; if Ridley was willing to wait that long to finally get to make another then it’ll be wonderful. Ridley created the dystopoian futuristic film genre; fans can breathe easier knowing the project is in the right hands.
I disagree, specially today where we actually live in the BR world.
Going to buy all the BR2 stuff. I’d even give an advance if needed.
I’m sure it’s already in the works considering the remake history lately. Nice to know that all thought and creativity has gone out the window recently.
Yes, this is a challenge message to Hollywood. You want people to think differently, then make something different. Quit riding the remake gravy train. Easy money to be sure, but if easy cheap money is the only thing that satisfies you then so be it. Fans are tired of it. Give us something new with creativity. If that’s actually in your vocabulary today.
yes yes yes!!!! blade runner is in my top five faves along with red dwarf a well watched english tv show that is based on the film bladerunner…i am so sick of remakes they never do it right and always use the wrong acters, they completly distroyed John Carenters the Thing wich is also one of my faves. but if they are going to remake bladerunner im up for it but a remake not a sequil.harison ford was perfect for the role but not enymore maybe kurt russle for decerd and an unknown as roy battey with a guest appierenc from the old blade mr ford, or what i think would be best, all unknown acters i like it when they do that in films like quentin tarantino`s inglourious basterds the unknown in that stol the hole show dont know his name but he played the nazi officer and he played the hell out that roll so yeah reames and unknown acters is a good thing and if they do make a new blade runner ill be the unknown acter playing Roy Batty lol if only in my dreams…….p.s sorry about the spelling.
yes yes another blade runner but a remake with all unknown acters and no one under the age 35…bring in harison fords old blade runner ass for shits and giggels. blade runner is one of them films that can go on for ever although i dont think it would go over well with the younger generation they would prob find it boaring im twenty three and most of my friends would go right to sleep becous nobody got there face blowen of in the first ten min of the film. it takes a surten kind to realy dig blade runner. never the less i would still love to see it…… i hope i did not bore enyone lol P.s sorry for the spelling. you should be abl to get the just of what im saying….
So now we know Ridley Scott is out of ideas.
You know Blade Runner was based on a Philip K Dick novel, right?
That wasn’t his point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F to be specific.
So, this scot never had ideas in the first place. Typical and expected.
There hasn’t been an original idea since man started to create stone tools. No idea is original. All ideas are just ideas built on or inspired by old ideas.
kthnx bai!!!!!!
Thank you, er.. captain obvious.
“There WAS life before 1900, you know, before Hollywood.” But it was dim dingy and B&W. See Over the Rainbow starting scene. Hollywood IS Oz.
God didn’t create Scotts to have ideas – he created us to make things work. the French and Italians were created to have grandiose unworkable ideas which they csn then to the Scotts to make thm work.
” So, this scot never had ideas in the first place. Typical and expected. ”
-1
What does that have to do with anything? The point being made is that Scott hasn’t had a successful film in some time and now is seeking to rehash his old hits.
Um… Do you even know of his body of work? Alien. Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, White Squall, Kingdom of Heaven, Black Rain, Thelma & Louise, etc, etc,.
These are just a few of his 60-70 movies that he has produced or directed. He also writes/produces/directs a few TV series in his spare time.
He doesn’t have much left to prove to you…
as mel brook once said to a critic…”I have made a masterpiece…let’s see you do that.”
I have lots of “original ideas” but when I share them someone generally steals them, often not realizing them as well as I eventually do because I take my time & do it right.
And in response to Timothy D, who said, “Um… Do you even know of his body of work? Alien. Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, White Squall, Kingdom of Heaven, Black Rain, Thelma & Louise, etc, etc,.”
I ask:
OK, so can you name ANYTHING he was involved in that was WORTH WATCHING?
So do you get these original ideas while serving lunch or dinner?
To answer your question….Alien. Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, White Squall, Kingdom of Heaven, Black Rain, Thelma & Louise etc etc.
Wow, a concieted post if ever I saw one.
1) If people keep stealing your ideas, stop sharing them, genius!
2) If you think none of Scott’s films are worth watching you are just an ignoramus.
3) What’s your name so we can compare your stirling filmography to Scott’s? Because you ‘do it right’ you must be very successful indeed.
No, now you know even he can’t get an original idea going in Hollywood.
This is what Hollywood is now. Marketing guys who can’t market anything original, which makes them bad marketing guys. But they control what comes out.
true. true…
There’s no way Harrison Ford will work on this film. He hated working with Ridley Scott 30 years ago.
Who wants that humorless old fart, anyway?
amen to that … keep your smug condescension on your ranch HF
And perhaps you should take your own advice there GENIOUS..brain surgeon..eater of BEEF BY PRODUCTS and TRANSFATTY ACIDS..okay MORONOVITCH…mange merde l’espece d’idioté!!!!
All Hollywood is out of ideas.
As we know you’re a bliterhing moron..out of ideas, that’s like saying, you’re a lady killer right? OR you don’t sit alone at night and flog yourself just for being an IDIOT..now, TOuch it..go on..touch it..you’ll feel better PHATTY. MORON…I love the moronic statements, one of the most brilliant film makers of all time, and you’re small minded arse says “DUH SO NOW WE KNOW HE’s out of ideas” as you are in that statment…testalemerda.
Well, on the plus side, at least it has the same director involved, and it’s going to be a separate piece as opposed to another ridiculous Hollywood reboot. I really hope it’ll be a sequel though, rather than a prequel. Let’s not forget how the Star Wars prequels turned out. :/ Better to move forward….
Why?
Why not.
Leave it alone, Ridley… it need not be touched.
And thus, the internet breaks in two.
You are correct sir! It will remain broken for some time.
Groan. I’d be more excited if Scott had made anything on par with this film in the last 20 years.
Not to sound jaded, but I fear this is just a ploy inorder to justify more alternate versions inwhich to flood the dvd/vod market … that is until the technology is perfected whereby Mr. Scott’s android double will redo it yet again and perpetuate the cycle.
Really? You’re just NOW figuring out that Hollywood is in this for the profit, the rest of the country be damned?
Welcome to the real world…..profit.
To be honest, I figured it out a long time ago, but I just wanted to do my bit in setting up someone else with an opportunity to post a snarky comment.
Your welcome.
I guess if they went back to the original Philip K Dick story (as the new Total Recall movie is doing) then it would avoid the stigma of being a remake of something that’s fine as it is.
I’ve managed to only just this week see BR for the first time, and I think one of the reasons it started so slow is because it’s *not* really an SF film; SF is just an excuse.
It’s a noir detective pic, and if you don’t go into it expecting that, you’ll be disappointed.
Baylink – you didn’t get it. The ‘detective’ is discovering some interesting aspects of humanity – while investigating androids. This is about as ‘SF’ as it gets, all the while deeply exploring ‘the human condition’, which is how this piece is pivotal in bringing SF into the world of literature.
Please re-watch. You might also consider reading some of the SF that inspired this movie.
Blade Runner is most certainly science fiction, and hard sci-fi at that. But you’re right it’s also neo-noir. What’s it’s not really is an action film which it has consistantly been billed as over the years. Yeah, there’s some action but it’s *not* an action film per se. Many go in expecting the action and are disappointed over the lack thereof.
Idiot.
WHOSE THE IDIOT? YOU, that I would agree with, the person’s statement above you is not idiotic at all although your hater response is…you need to READ PKDICK STORYS yourself..richardweed..if I may call you that..Richard WEED…anyway..it’s all those things, hard and soft sci, HUMOUR and definately in scott’s BRILLIANT vision, neo noire, so what of it…IDIOT. FIZZZMISSION, SPANK THYSELF..
I have to admit that I did not like this film when it was first released in theaters. I was in my late-teens and it was so unlike any other movie I had seen up to that point – I just didn’t know how to take it. The so-called villian was, in the end, too sympathetic and the “hero” was revealed to be doing the devils work.
Over time I kept going back to it because I could sense its greatness but I had to work at overcoming all the years of programming that prevented me from seeing or appreciating this non-traditional story. In general, I believe, I was not alone in that experience and that is why “Blade Runner” didn’t find immediate success.
This motion picture was the first to really open my eyes to what films could be and to the variety of stories that could be told.
What GMC said. I was 12 and I thought Blade Runner was BORING in the theaters. I saw it again in high school on VHS and realized it was probably the best movie I’d ever seen. It was the first movie I bought on DVD, first on Blu-Ray and I would even buy a crappy 3D conversion.
If the original took place in a futuristic 2019, and they haven’t started writing, let a long filming. Wouldn’t a prequel almost be “modern”… The mind boggles
A prequel might show the extinction of all animals on earth the way, etc. our forage into space, the introduction of cyborgs and simply WHY they’re NOT allowed on earth, one could go into a billion different directions..or a few, I trust Mr. Scott, I don’t trust ANYONE in this room, except those who make sense..and they’re aremany..I could CARE less if people thinkenzi I make sense…twuly.OH TWU…but I have faith in Ridley he RARELY misses a beat..and that is RARE..like NOLAN, they’re both so damn gifted..owooga..doodle dooodle dee wubba wubba wubba…so there…
Please leave this movie alone. There is no need to remake this. It’s a classic and perfect as is.
Hollywood stop rehashing old ideas. I know plenty of writers with great new ideas for films but hollywoods obsession with just making money has blinded them from taking risks on anything new. Take a chance! stop regurgitating, you’ll get acid reflux!
So with all the resources in the world to find/develop new ideas, why move backward? Blade Runner’s place in cinematic history is secure.
Blade Runner is one of the best movies ever, leave it alone. If you have no new ideas than just retire.
I agree…. Blade Runner is an absolute classic. But… just on the chance that Scott could pull off another of the same caliber is enough to support the effort. At the first word by others that it’s not up to par and I won’t ruin my memories of the original by viewing the new movie.
As much as I’d like to see the attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion with modern CGI and 3D, the reality is the original Blade Runner universe should probably just be left as is.
Thanks for helping me make up my mind. I don’t think they should mess with perfection.
While the original is amazing, it would be terrific to see an updated version. I believe a prequel that shows how Deckard gets so burnt out would be interesting.
He’s burnt out because All replicants burn out.
A worthy response.
The important thing is that Vangelis create the music for this movie, as that is 70% of the greatness of the original.
And leave out the f’ing unnecessary narration in the non-director’s cut.
thankyou and have a nice day.
Wow another remake……Does Hollywierd have any …..any new ideas. This will be another classic sci-fi movie redone to be politically correct and have the “proper” perspective. In other words it will be another steeming turd from the makers of the irrelevant.
WoW! you nailed it on the mark. So true sad but true
the prime examples are War of The Worlds with Tom Cruse
(They should be put in jail for f_ing up that classic of all SyFy’s
and there is the re-make of planet of the Apes ~the first remake of mANY~ WHAT A STEAMER THAT WAS!
@Furdburfill, Amen to that…add The Day The Earth Stood Still to the list. Keanu..really??? And they can take the Eco-phony cant on the need for destruction of man and stick it. Other Classics in line to be destroyed-Forbidden Planet and When Worlds Collide…ugh I shudder to think what Hollyweird will do to those greats…
I want a job in Hollywood writing storylines. I can just pick up and old one and rehash it. That’s all that’s out there these days, repeats. And not even very good ones. What happened to original movies?
Blade Runner is my all-time favorite movie. I shudder to think what reimagining would do to it. For every 25 repeats, maybe one surpasses the original.
Leave it alone, Ridley.
Wasn`t Deckard himself a Replicant? That was what I got anyways
No… no… no he wasn’t. I’ve seen this misconception crop up several times over the years. In the movie this wasn’t even hinted at. In the novella the replicants tried to convince Deckard he was a replicant, but he wasn’t.
Ridley Scott said he was a replicant.
It most certainly was hinted at…in the director’s cut at least (mind you, this was well before “director’s cuts” was just another way to grab cash).
The theatrical release of the movie was a dumbed-down version of the original, with Deckard doing expository voice-over during scenes which are better off just being shown – the city flyover being the first and perhaps most notable example.
The director’s cut also included the dream of the unicorn, which was cut from the theatrical, but referenced in a later (not cut) scene, where Edward James Olmos’ character leaves behind foil origami unicorn, for Deckard to find.
So while there is no proof, as it were, that Deckard was a Replicant, it it clearly hinted, and left for the audience to ponder the implications.
The point of the movie, the Director’s Cut anyway (the studio cut was about nothing with its crap happy ending and stupid voice over), was that Decker was less “human” than the replicants, lacking empathy for them. This was the opposite of the novel (not a novella, but a full novel), yet it managed to convey the same ideas and questions about what it means to be human. In the movie, Ford plays Decker with flattened affect, a lack of emotionality when having emotions would be appropriate. Flattened affect is a sign of mental illness such as schizophrenia, depression, etc. (Also themes of PKD’s work.)
People that think Decker was a replicant are looking in the right direction, they’re just not there yet. There are hints that could lead to this interpretation, but it doesn’t go far enough. The overall arc of Decker’s character is that he’s crumbling, and can he hold it together long enough to complete this last job.
Regarding this current project of Scott’s, I have misgivings. Is he going to rewrite the Bladerunner script or is he going to go back to the original source material? There is a LOT that was left out from the book, from the opening sequence with the Penfield Mood Organ (possibly one of the funniest SciFi first chapters ever) to the Mercer and the Empathy Boxes, the Buster Friendly and His Friendly Friends TV show, to the Electric Sheep and other artificial animals.
If Scott does go back to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? he has a lot of material he could work with to do something new and possibly even fresh.
Age has nothing to do with it. Look at Clint Eastwood. The man is 81 and he’s still making movies that are worth a damn. He directed some of his best in his 60s and 70s.
Just so long as we dont have to watch Harrison Ford argue with an empty chair,I think we will be ok.
On the last DVD Ridley Scott said he believed Deckard was a Replicant
In the Final Cut, which was the only cut that Scott had complete creative control over, it’s pretty obvious that Deckard is a Replicant. Scott confirmed this earlier, in 2000.
No, this was purposely left ambiguous in the movie, but the possibility was very real. That was the whole point of the dream sequence and the origami unicorn. The fact that Gaff placed it there hints that Dekerd was, in fact, a replicant. It is made more blatant in the director’s cut.
#1: Ridley did confirm that Deckard was a Replicant himself, as was alluded to in the novel. You can find that by looking for it – search original cast press conference. I was more delighted to know that Ridley’s inspiration for the look/feel of the future L.A. was based on Hong Kong, particularly the Wan Chai district at the time. We lived in HK in the 80s, noticed the striking similarity and suspected that was the inspiration – we were right.
#2: There was no Unicorn dream sequence in the theatrical cut. It was removed and later restored for the Director’s Cut on home video. All that was left in the original edit, was Gaff’s origami gum wrapper Unicorn, when Deckard leaves with Rachel. We knew it meant Gaff had been there because Deckard said so, but the significance of the Unicorn before the dream sequence was restored was ambiguous and widely discussed and debated. We mostly assumed it was merely a symbolic comparison with Rachel or their new relationship somehow. Of course, it all makes sense now in retrospect with the missing clue scene back in there.
No
Yes he is.
I have only seen the director’s cut, and it’s obvious there.
The paper sculpture he finds in the end, which matches with his dream of a unicorn, and the police guy saying “Too bad she won’t live, but then again who does?”
Very clear.
Hollywood Out of Ideas Exhibit #1287347090723
Embarrassing. Even more so that it’s somehow newsworthy.
Hey Ridley, don’t forget to add awful CGI – one can’t make a hit film nowadays without over-the-top special effects.
A 3.5 minute “trailer” with a V.O. that’s not even Harrison Ford’s voice and Rutger Hauer in a thong? I’ll pass.
Saw the 90s director’s cut in a theater – most incredible cinematography I’ve ever seen. Ever.
Leave it alone.
I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
Then go to the off-world colonies – the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!
LOL! Love that quote
If this was Facebook…I’d Like this Comment.
That’s just it, isn’t it. A never ending cycle of supposed growth.
always running from the past.
Well you can always hop on the Space Shutt….err never mind.
Really, don’t mess with it.
It was an excellent film and an equally excellent soundtrack by Vangelis.
If you must do something with the genre, do something from Walter Jon Williams (Hardwired, Voice of the Whirlwind), or Count Zero, or other such Cyberpunk stories that later became the inspiration to Johnny Mnemonic and The Matrix.
And get Vangelis to do the soundtrack.
Actually…Johnny Mnemonic was the inspiration for Johnny Mnemonic. It’d be really lame to do Count Zero without doing the whole Sprawl trilogy.
I hope he doesn’t rehash Blade Runner. There was a book sequel to it. Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human and it was rather good. If he ran with that I’d enjoy watching it.
That was not written by PKD, it’s more like fan fiction that got published.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Human