Yes, they were awful. KW Jeter is abysmal. I think he managed to butcher a few SW and ST novels as well.
Blade Runner prequels/sequels planned!
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
Yes, they were awful. KW Jeter is abysmal. I think he managed to butcher a few SW and ST novels as well.
I wanna TV series that will do what Caprica was trying to do, but was too boring/cancelled to actually pull off. Bonus points if they can hire some of those actors (not the kids except for Zoe though).
This deal specifically excludes remaking the original so I see no reason to carp.
This deal specifically excludes remaking the original so I see no reason to carp.
I think it's time to stop thinking of movies as "brands" or "franchises". I can't think of a single good thing brought about by that way of thinking. In my opinion, movies are much better when they're made by people who see them as art, not as products.
Hmmm... I see where you're coming from, but, I think things can go just as disastrously wrong when one forgets they are producing a Franchise Product and they make a mistake when deciding how the art should look.
No, because someone who's genuinely interested in art and creativity would not make a Blade Runner sequel or anything else that sounds like a brand of toothpaste.
I first heard about this elsewhere, and I stand by what I said then: at this stage, I'm not ready to scream "NOOOOOOO!!!!" just yet.
Thankfully they don't have remake rights. A prequel would be a stupid idea, mostly because time has marched on and the year 2019 is only eight years away. A direct sequel is problematic because with Deckard, Rachael and so on there's really no more story to tell. But if they were to make a movie which is set in the Blade Runner universe but mostly unrelated to the plot of the original movie -- an indirect sequel -- that could be brilliant. Who says the sequels need to be any more related to the original than, say, a City Watch book and a Lancre Witches book are related to each other in Discworld?
See, the thing is Blade Runner sets up a whole bunch of concepts but only explores them partway -- mainly because we only ever actually see Los Angeles -- while a sequel or several sequels could actually take those concepts & run with them, broadening our understanding of the Blade Runner universe as a whole. Just as an example, what about the offworld colonies? From what we can tell in the original, most of the human race is living in these colonies now, and the colonists each get their own personal replicant slave upon emigrating. They could set a movie on one of the colonies and get a brilliant story out of it, no trouble.
Thankfully they don't have remake rights. A prequel would be a stupid idea, mostly because time has marched on and the year 2019 is only eight years away. A direct sequel is problematic because with Deckard, Rachael and so on there's really no more story to tell. But if they were to make a movie which is set in the Blade Runner universe but mostly unrelated to the plot of the original movie -- an indirect sequel -- that could be brilliant. Who says the sequels need to be any more related to the original than, say, a City Watch book and a Lancre Witches book are related to each other in Discworld?
See, the thing is Blade Runner sets up a whole bunch of concepts but only explores them partway -- mainly because we only ever actually see Los Angeles -- while a sequel or several sequels could actually take those concepts & run with them, broadening our understanding of the Blade Runner universe as a whole. Just as an example, what about the offworld colonies? From what we can tell in the original, most of the human race is living in these colonies now, and the colonists each get their own personal replicant slave upon emigrating. They could set a movie on one of the colonies and get a brilliant story out of it, no trouble.
Does it matter? There's nothing to lose as far as I can see, since Blade Runner is untouchable. Anything else may be set in its universe but that's as far as any link goes.
They don't have the rights to remake it. Just to make sequels, prequels, spinoffs and so on.
(Incidentally, I would also like to see a film adaption of 2061. I'm not interested in a film adaption of 3001, though -- it barely has a plot. In fact, I'd rather they remake 2010 first and do it right this time, and then make 2061.)
If Ridley was making it, I'd be in. If not... it's another too-late spinoff and I'll pass on it.
No offence, but that's complete balls. Why couldn't someone see Blade Runner and be so inspired by it's brilliance and its hints of an entire unexplored world in the background not be perfectly capable of creatively and artistically playing within that world?
Duncan Jones, for instance, the talented director behind "Moon," has expressed interest in making a film that is not a sequel or prequel to Blade Runner, but takes place within it's world. I'm actually kind of worried how this deal might affect that.
Seeing as how its "hints of an entire unexplored world in the background" can be explored at any time by reading old Philip K. Dick novels and 1970's issues of the French Metal Hurlant magazine, I'm fairly certain that that well has dried by now, but yeah, I guess anyone can be inspired by anything. Still, how about being inspired to create something new?
There's room on the planet for both types of movie and they already co-exist.
I can think of several franchise series and clearly financially-motivated movies that I've enjoyed. Almost every major movie made in the last 25+ years has been heavily financially driven and there are certainly some fun shows in there. It doesn't even preclude people in some key positions in the movie being more artistically than financially minded.
For instance, I'm not a massive Batman fan personally, but a lot of people who seem to know what they're talking about really seem to appreciate the strong artistic vision Nolan brings to the series. But these are still most definitely primarily financially-driven ventures, with a clear central focus on making a commercially-viable franchise.
There's still room for more pure art-oriented movies too of course, but they will naturally (as a rule; there are of course occasional exceptions) have lower budgets and smaller audiences.
I don't think it's a problem to consider movies as a business; more things get made than otherwise, and more people get experience than otherwise. If they want to do lower budget, more purely artistic work, they still can too.
On the planet, sure. In Hollywood, that no longer seems to be the case:
I'm sure you've all read this fascinating article, "The Day the Movies Died", but I'm providing a link for those of you who haven't yet.
Star Trek XI was pretty good. The Clone Wars is a great expansion of the Star Wars franchise. Both have helped resurrect their respective battered franchises by re-focusing them and getting them back on a good track. Neither are great art, but we don't expect that, do we?
Hollywood loves brands and franchises because they're a proven way to make money. Also, brands and franchises are a successful basis for corporations in general that sell toothpaste, dog food and burgers. The businesspeople who run Hollywood learn the same things in MBA school that the dog food people do. The rules are the same everywhere because the rules work everywhere. Because of this, it's futile to ever expect that mentality to change.
