They could probably do these movies without realting it to Bladerunner
"Futuristic city sprawl world where they genetic enhcance humans for the really tough and dirty job." thing is can be universal and there is no need to realte it to Blade Runner, unless you're a money greedy vampiure who wants to use a famous film name to suck as much money out of the project as possible.
(
Crap Little Monkey Deathstar, so good they built it twice, Thu 3 Mar 2011, 15:17,
Share,
Reply)
I completely agree
Blade Runner is my favourite film of all time and making modern day sequels and prequels is only going to ruin it for all of us fans.
Science Fiction film is full of utopian/dystopian comments on society and class systems, thats just part of what makes the genre. There is no need to use the Blade Runner name to sell a few new movies.
Someone is getting greedy it would seem.
This doesn't mean I won't watch them though, albeit without paying for the luxury.
(
Coubs Salty toothpaste, Thu 3 Mar 2011, 15:32,
Share,
Reply)
How is the making a prequel or sequel going to ruin the original for you
(, Thu 3 Mar 2011, 16:17, Share, Reply)
Because they ruin things about the original
Example,
Then: The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.
Now: Midifuckingchlorians
(
Peej, Thu 3 Mar 2011, 16:47,
Share,
Reply)
i personally would be happy if they made prequels and sequels to the shit i liked
They might turn out shitty and not at all like the original but that doesn't take anything away from it just the opportunity to make it better
(, Thu 3 Mar 2011, 16:53, Share, Reply)
I dont know (might be worth reading up on any academic stuff on this actually)
But I'd imagine it has something to do with the implied or alluded to backstory of any film, and then the implied or more often than not 'open' possible future once the credits roll. So when you have a cult film such as Blade Runner its very difficult to create a story which will please the vast majority of fan's preconceptions as to what the surrounding storylines should be like (is Deckard a replicant or not?) and if a film is 'officially' part of a Blade Runner series it then potentialy makes those fan's preconceived ideas of what the surrounding stories are null and void?. Thus Trekkies getting their knickers in a twist over the recent film (what does this mean for the 'Cannon' of Star Trek, is it part of the 'Cannon'?, and woe betide anyone who suggests the 'Cannon' could be wrong ;) ) So like with Star Trek, I loved the new film because I didn't have as much invested in the old TV series as Trekkies do. Personaly with Blade Runner though, its one of my favourite films, so messing about with the backstory etc. worries me. Especialy as the ending is so ambiguous, if you then set in stone that Deckard is or isn't a replicant that impacts your reading of the original. Of course for some one that hasn't seen the original, or wasn't that into it they wont care, and will probably enjoy having an entire backstory etc spoon fed to them?
(
Jorvic, Thu 3 Mar 2011, 17:00,
Share,
Reply)
