This is only part of the reason why the whole idea is patently ludicrous.

In all seriousness, R. Scott is either very good or very bad. If it's good, and has nothing to do with Deckard, there's potential for an interesting film. But a prequel or a remake could only be laughably bad, in my opinion. Either way, the project is still at least two years out, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Edit: "Deckard" goddammit.

THANK YOU!

I suppose that's one way of saying there's no point in discussing this right now. Which would be true enough if there were multiple ways such a sequel or prequel could be made. But right now I'm struggling to find just one that doesn't automatically render the first film non-canon.

I know that Blade Runner practically did that to itself in its one foolish compromise in trying to retain something more of the book. But I think that I'd rather have had Decker be a hardcore snuff addict than Ridley think that keeping such an obviously flawed date was a good idea.

Its Mr. Deckard, if youre nasty.

Like for what? For being obvious? ; )

Dear GOD!!! You are missing one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time! Get the director's cut edition and watch it NOW. I saw it back in 1981 and thirty years later its still a great, great movie. I just watched it again last year and fell in love all over.

Ridley Scott has been tinkering with Blade Runner for about as long as George Lucas has been tinkering with the original Star Wars trilogy. I see parallels there that make me uneasy.

Also, Scott's insistence that Deckard is a replicant (despite it making no sense, and the author of the original book, and all of the screenwriters saying he's human) make me worry about what will happen. I actually found the original movie to be rather dull, and agree with the moniker of "Blade Crawler." While it's certainly interesting, none of the themes are really deeply explored, and some of the themes aren't even mentioned at all in the Director's cut versions, due to removal of the voice-over.

In any case, if you're interested in something deeper, read Dick's book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? which was the inspiration for the movie. It's a fascinating read, and while the plot differs from the movie in a lot of ways, many of the same themes are discussed, and in much greater depth and artistry. I greatly prefer it to any of the versions of the movie I've seen (there are like 11, I've seen 3 of them).

Totally agree with you. Blade Runner is my all time favorite movie HANDS DOWN. I would say get the Final Cut version as I feel it is the version that represents Ridley Scotts true vision. Watch this movie, and then watch it again and again and again until you annoy the people around you as much as I annoy my wife. Actual quote from my wife "Are you watching that damn Blade Rammer movie again!!!!"

Alright, I'm an heretic but I'll watch it as soon as I can.

They could make a prequel "How Gaff got his limp".

I love the movie (I actually like both the original, with voice-overs and the Director's Cut - haven't seen "Final Cut" yet but I will eventually).

I can't see a prequel or sequel doing anything worthwhile. The movie is standalone.
If they do another movie set in the same universe but with different characters then there's a chance it'll be ok ... but they'll probably just end up throwing "3D" at it to compensate for a lack of originality.

Ridley Scott might have a magic idea - there's always hope - but I won't hold my breath.
(but I probably will catch it on DVD/BluRay just to see if it's any good - their money's probably safe with the name "Blade Runner" behind it, even if people think it sucks after they've seen it).

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Ridley you Geordie twat leave it alone!

Agree with this - I've seen a few remakes that failed to capture the original's atmosphere due to the clean Hollywood filming (e.g. Japanese horror flick 'The Ring' - sound and video "lower quality" in the original but atmosphere much better)