'Blade Runner' prequels, sequels in the works

The guys that are trying to make it happen have made a couple of good movies in the past.
If they can't takle the project with the respect and skill it deserves, I'm all for it.
 
I dont see any room in the story for either a directly connected sequel\prequel, sure you could force something but that would be cheesy..

I can see Decker in the same world\universe doing some OTHER detective type activities..
 
You're forgetting the reason on why the replicants are terminated.
I could go for something along the lines of the first replicants to develop a concience.
 
sure, but then its not really about a Blade Runner then... Like I said, the STORY of Blade Runner, to me is all about Decker and his reaction to the situations.

And depending on which cut I watch and how I feel today, Decker IS a replicant..
 
afaik there are a couple of sequels of the book "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?", not written by Philip K. Dick though. These sequels are "officialy authorized", whatever that means. I haven't read any of them, so I can't say whether they're good or bad, but at least there's something the people in charge can look at.

edit: ok, apparently these books are actually sequels of the film "Blade Runner" not "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?"
wikipedia knows something about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_runner#Sequels
 
Last edited:
Sure, why not? I think it's probably good, though, that they don't have the rights to remake the original.

Dave McNary:
"Blade Runner" wasn't a B.O. hit, but its stature has grown.
I'm thinking that that's just a little bit of an understatemate, afterall.
 
That's like saying that pizza is better than Jimi Hendrix. Or, dogs are better than baseball. Or, boobs are better than laughing babies.

A book is different than a movie. Can't compare them.

Oh, and
Deckard IS a replicant
.
x2. The book and the movie are similar in that the protagonist is named Deckard. After that, pretty much everything diverges. Well, I guess a couple of the replicants names are the same, but yeah. Completely different stories told in somewhat similar settings.

Having said that, the story as told in the book would make for a fascinating film, but far more internalized and well, us American's don't respond as well to internalized sci-fi on the big screen as we do to LASERS!!!! PEW! PEW!!!

NTTIAWWT :D

Prequel/Sequel - meh. Whatever. Let's see what they have in mind. Scott's version of PKD's world is interesting enough to warrant more stories. A smart person though would leave Deckard/Rachel/et al out of it and start fresh. Keep the world, the tone, etc, and find a couple of new stories with new people.
 
Last edited:
In interviews over 20 years old, Ridley Scott said he was connecting the original ALIEN to BLADE RUNNER and that's why several of the read out screens were identical in the Spinners and the main space ship in ALIEN.

Screenwriter David Peoples set the Kurt Russell film SOLDIER in the same universe as BLADE RUNNER with several references to the same battles etc. that Roy Batty mentions before he died.

In the original screenplay drafts and even storyboarded was an entire sequence of how Roy Batter escaped from off world to get back to Earth that would have been over 20 minutes long.

There is material there to work with, but I think calling them "sequels" as opposed to just setting other stories in that world is a mistake. Basically they are just securing money from the bank by using the name BLADE RUNNER.

A non-sequel/remake is a higher financial risk in this economy. That's why in the next 18 months there are already 29 sequels/remakes on the books from Hollywood.
 
Top