RSS
Should Ridley Scott make another Blade Runner?
After 30 years, the (sometimes) great director is making a follow-up to his 1982 classic. Sacrilege or cause for celebration?
 
Director Ridley Scott is reportedly eager to revisit his 1982 sci-fi classic "Blade Runner," but critics aren't so enthused.
Director Ridley Scott is reportedly eager to revisit his 1982 sci-fi classic "Blade Runner," but critics aren't so enthused.
Jason Merritt/Getty Images

In an extreme example of going back to the future, Sir Ridley Scott has signed on to direct a follow-up to Blade Runner, his 1982 sci-fi classic widely beloved by film school geeks and Daryl Hannah completists. Should the acclaimed director really retread such hallowed ground, even if (or especially since) he was the one to plant the original seeds?

Let the original be: "I have mixed feelings about a new Blade Runner," says E.D. Kain at Forbes. I've found some of Scott's recent films disappointing, so I'm not particularly interested in seeing him mess with one of his best films. It's become all too easy to rely on big-budget visual effects instead of giving audiences the "subtle symbolism and subtext" that made the original such a complex, "masterful piece of science fiction."
"Ridley Scott is making a new Blade Runner movie"

But the original isn't untouchable: It's worth noting that a number of different versions of Blade Runner have appeared in the last 29 years, says Rick Porter at Zap 2 It. For the original theatrical release, the studio demanded that a happy ending be tacked on to the film after test audiences found it too dark. In the early '90s, a "Director's Cut" featuring significant changes was released. Then, just four years ago, Scott got to put out a "Final Cut" version (on DVD and Blu-ray) over which he had full control. "Presumably this time he'll get to make the movie he wants" from the outset.
"Blade Runner follow-up is a go, Ridley Scott will direct again"

This is a strange move: "Can an acclaimed director successfully Benjamin Button his own career?" asks Andy Greenwald at Grantland. "And, more important, should he?" I know Hollywood is wild about the past, but "Blade Runner is just the sort of perfectly realized picture that should be left alone, not remade into a plasticky, $200 million pale replicant version of itself." Still, who knows. Leonardo Da Vinci said "Art is never finished." Maybe "Scott is a latter-day Da Vinci," and "his films are, in actuality, mere canvases for the macho maestro to revisit again and again." Not that I want to see a new version of Gladiator starring Taylor Lautner.  
"Ridley Scott to make replicant version of Blade Runner"

 

THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER

Subscribe to the Week