Well it definitely felt like a style over substance type of movie it's pretty to look at but there's not much there.

Of course I am a PKD fan and loved the original story so..

Compared to the original story, it does come across stale and almost two-dimensional. I still loved it though, and I think it's still at least the most accurate representation of a PKD story on film to-date.

1. If your childhood hero turns out to be a moron you will loose respect for all his works including ones you loved (so he better stop before dementia makes him direct unnecessary crappy sequels).
2. Many people (most notably your children!) who have not had contact with the brilliant original movie before the release of the stupid sequel may be unable to embrace the original brilliance because of the uncontrollable search for connections to the sequel.

There.

Considering Scott has been saying Deckard is a replicant for years now, that part doesn't come as a surprise.

As for the actual sequal, I am okay with it, if it has entirely different cast from the original. The world of Blade Runner is a big place, so there's a lot of opportunities to tell stories in it. But if they try just to mimick the orginal movie, then there's no reason to do a follow up.

The Blade Runner game proved that you can make a good story with no Deckard at all although there was some reminiscence of his story in some parts of the game.

I never found the idea of Deckard being a replica intriguing or illuminating in any way, it didn't add anything in the story or the feeling of the movie. I always supported that the protagonist being human has a far stronger effect on the outcome instead.
Why so many people are fascinated by that is beyond me.
It much reminds me of conspiracy theorists that strive for the most convoluted and impossible explanation so they can pat themselves at the back for being so "smart".

I don't fully understand your point. Are you agreeing with because I said that I preferred Deckard being human? Or are you disagreeing because I said I thought the mystery of what Deckard was is better than actually knowing what he is?

I thought it would be clear. Of course I agree with you, although I go a step further and support that Deckard being a replica doesn't add anything.
So, human all the way! :)

Damn, Ridley Scott sure is sexy, never knew he was a she.;P

Agree entirely . Blade Runner was practically an art house film masquerading as a Hollywood production. And what a film it was; incredible cinematography, some of the best sound design and mixing I've ever heard, jaw dropping production design and art direction. A script that was more than just superficial... *sigh*

Based on the horror show that was Prometheus, we can expect, boring cinematography, lacklustre music, crap CGI replacing actual models and sets. And a painfully re-imagined art direction. Ipads will be prevalent I'm sure. The fact Deckard is now officially a Nexus 6 hints at an almost certainly dumbed down script. Maybe they will make the action film everyone expected to see when the film was first released.

A prequal to Alien I can understand, It's just a shame they made such a dogs dinner out of just about everything. But some films should just be left alone. I can't see how you could possibly make a satisfying sequel to Blade Runner, it's about as smart as making a sequel to Taxi Driver :D

The last thing I want is hack writer Damon Lindelof even coming close to anything remotely related to Blade Runner. His effect on Prometheus was bad enough. Terrible writing.

Blade Runner is not the most accurate representation of a PKD story. There are lots of missing parts and themes. In "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", Deckard is married, wants to own a real sheep (owning real animals is a status symbol), isn't depressed and wants to better himself and his career, replicants are called "andys".

If you want a film that is close to the PKD story then try "A Scanner Darkly".

Of course you can! There are many versions of the movie that point this way, and so does the original book (which, granted, isn't 1:1 like the movie anyway).

Say what you will, no director is going to correct my beliefs about his movie decades after it came out, no matter how many different cuts he publishes out of it with tiles like "Final" or "Directors".

Damn, I'd pay a lot to see Harrison Ford's cut of this. He had it right back then.

As for the sequel, I won't beat to death anything I don't see first. Way too many unfortunate accidents that way. Prometheus was... Well, I think it was worth seeing once. But nothing groundbreaking. Majority of the hate is bandwagoning, I claim.

If I learned one thing about old people going back to their roots, it's that old people tend to SUCK at what their young selves were capable of.

If you look at the talent in the games industry and what they've done in recent years, it makes me wonder if talent doesn't dry up once you reach a certain age and once the brain is no longer capable of coming up with fresh ideas. Heck, I read Retro Gamer and all these "legends" they interview tried to make modern games and mostly failed miserably even when their older games were brilliant.

With movies, it's very much the same thing: George Lucas, Ridley Scott, etc. all made some great movies but seem to have lost the plot and don't seem to have the ability anymore to see beyond the basics. Stanley Kubrick was an exception but in general, I find they pick the wrong cast, they add bad plot elements, etc.

Prometheus showed to me that Ridley Scott no longer knows how to make a proper good movie and while I'm a HUGE Blade Runner fan, I can't for the life of me believe this will live up to expectations. The fact that he openly says Deckard was a Nexus 6 shows his age has changed him because one of the biggest rules is to always keep the suspense and mystery alive.