Should Ridley Scott make another Blade Runner?

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"

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

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"