Ridley Scott to direct and produce new Blade Runner film. - Page 3

Frankly, other than breathing, I don't know if anything is actually necessary (excepting beer, of course).

The buzz is Prometheus is only semi-related to Alien.
What if this movie is likewise (an assumption on my part)?
What if the connection is fairly loose?
IMO, there is a possibility of something good coming out of it....

With a whopping 14 participants in the poll! Any others? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the results but...

larry

Blade Runner in 1982 used optical special effects and miniatures and real building interiors via on-location shooting. Hollywood no longer funds movies with such expensive techniques. If a sequel to Blade Runner gets made, you can be certain it is going to be a CGI Fest, with actors wearing suits in front of "green screen" sets. I don't think they will acheive the same "cyberpunk" look or atmosphere as the first film. IMHO that look was vital to the unique film noir grittyness and decay that communicated the fact that the rejected humans were clinging to a dying planet, while the "superior" immigrants and the replicants spread throughout the galaxy.

The feel of the film is the film in this case ,IMO. One problem (and a big one) is the old adage you can never go back. Even if we go back to that place we are different.

Art

+1

Also, that poll is about "Which version of Blade Runner should I watch first???".

Agreed. They are, and will, promote this film based on the Blade Runner "brand name" as a marketing device, but the actual contents won't, and as you say, can't, be the same as what the name on the package implies. They should never have used the name "Blade Runner".

Prometheus has massive sets. Some of the largest built this century. From what I have read, Scott wanted to capture a 3D environment in the camera and not with a computer. The question is, will he be force to pull back on the action, violence and horror, as he did with Robin Hood (hate to sound like a broken record, but it is what it is).

Were Blade Runner made today, it would be a PG-13 film. No doubt it would be toned down.

The more I think of it, the idea of another Blade Runnerish film gives me the shakes. I'm not liking this one bit.

Especially the 3D thing. If Prometheus is shown in IMAX theaters, I'll see it in 3D. otherwise, no way. 2D here I come. For a new Blade Runner, same thing.

If Blade Runner were made exactly as-is (definitive cut) and rated for the first time today, there's nothing in the film that would merit more than a PG. The only reason that the MPAA gave the "Final Cut" an R in 2007 is that they had already given the theatrical cut an R back in 1982, and didn't want to draw attention to the fact that the standards for violence have gotten so lax in the meantime.

The MPAA only cares about sex and the f-word now.

+1

Not true. You cannot have realistic blood in a PG-13 film. There are numerous shots of squirting or draining blood. Plus you have a nail being shoved through a hand (trimmed to avoid an X rating), a bullet penetrating a head and of course, fingers pushed into eye sockets (trimmed to avoid the X) and the character Priss being shot multiple times (another scene that had to be trimmed down to avoid an X rating).

PG-13 = zero realism in regards to guns and knives and what they do to human tissue, bone, etc.

There are actually a number of films from the 80's that if rated today, would be bumped up to an R from PG (FIREFOX) and PG-13 (RED DAWN) because of blood squibs.

Even martial arts films like The Transporter have been censored by the MPAA because the bone crunching action has been considered to be too realistic.

Plus, everyone seems to have forgotten about Joanna Cassidy's boobies in the dressing room scene.

Those descriptions doesn't include 80s or older films (when there was no PG-13).

Before 1984, anything that didn't qualify for R was generally rated PG, which allowed for pretty much everything PG-13 now covers. Stuff like Temple of Doom and Gremlins finally brought about PG-13.

Everything else is pretty much the same (Although some of the stuff that was rated X originally, like Midnight Cowboy, might just get R today.)

Which does not apply here. We are discussing films made and rated today, not 30 years ago.

Sure, I'm open for the idea, but where is the "hate" you were referring to?

I don't deny that Star Wars is a classic.

A prequel would be dumb.
For example, what do ya do with the HF character?
Do the Jeff Bridges Tron sequel thing and try to make him look 20ish?
Ugh!

IMO, a sequel is the only real option.

Scott could do essentialy what he's doing with his Alien prequel, which is to make a new story set in the same universe as the original, but with totally different characters.

In fact, from that /Film article linked above:

Hmmm....hadn't considered that possibility.

One thing that amazes me is the fact Ridley Scott is even making these films at age 74.
That's an age where lots of people have felt pretty worn down and creaky, physically and mentally. Directing these type of epic films is a massive undertaking, yet he's ready to bounce into another Blade Runner film and THEN would like to do another Prometheus?

Many of us could only hope to be so productive during those years...

R.S. is a stud...and always has been....

That's the Hollywood way. "We don't have a script yet, but the sets are already being built and cameras will roll in three days."

Clint Eastwood turns 82 in May, and still churns out a new movie every year.

Having a connection to another film does not make it a sequel or a prequel. The Fifth Element has far more of a connection to Blade Runner than Soldier does but that doesn't make it a sequel either

'Blade Runner' Writer to Re-Team with Director Ridley Scott on Sequel


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...irector-326257

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Blade...uel-30991.html

BREAKING: Hampton Fancher is in talks to join director Ridley Scott in developing a new version of Blade Runner for Alcon Entertainment. Alcon is acknowledging the film is a sequel, and that it takes place some years after the first film concluded. Fancher cowrote the original Blade Runner, based on the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?

Alcon Entertainment had the rights to the 1982 science fiction classic that starred Harrison Ford, but excitement on the project really escalated once Deadline revealed last August that Scott would come back and revisit the source material as director. Scott's next film is Prometheus, a film that started as a prequel to his classic Alien, which he and Fox consider to be an original film. That's different from Blade Runner, which at this point is being considered a sequel, even though Alcon has gone on record that the next movie won't focus on Ford's character, who hunted replicants until he fell in love with one. According to Alcon, Scott and Fancher intended Blade Runner to be the first in a series of films, but that didn't happen. Now they are taking their crack at the second installment.

Scott is producing with Alcon cofounders Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove, as well as Bud Yorkin and Cynthia Sikes Yorkin. Thunderbirg Films' Frank Giustra and Tim Gamble are exec producing. Fancher is repped by APA.

The discussion about BR here is more interesting than the topic of a sequel.

There are classics and there are events that are historical...in cinema terms. Blade Runner may occupy both. On it's release, this film was a major event for several reasons. The sci-fi story was curiously compelling, the effects and production design break-through, and the visuals stunning for their day. Finally, something nobody else has mentioned here, it enjoyed the benefit of the lead role being played by a man that was on the cusp of cinema greatness. The casting of Ford made a huge impact...in the day. On subsequent viewing today, I don't feel the "event," but I do feel the classic character. I would bet that many who are too young to have experienced its impact at the time of release are not as moved with that event feeling on first viewing. Ford doesn't have that impact on them, and the film has a very 80s feel to it (including the fascinating score).

So, monumental movie? Yes. Lasting impact of its original debut? Probably not...even for me as much as I love it.