Personally I prefer a remake/re-imagining because the Sci-Fi look of the original movie looks outdated which is hilarious calling something in the future outdated but its to 80s look of Sci-Fi, update the look of the movie with a more modern aesthetic of Sci-Fi today.

Damn whippersnappers can't appreciate products of their time. =P

Don't you now wish you had tattooed it?

EDIT: typo.

Aww nawwwwwws ! Did I fail the Voight-Kampff test again ?????

I appreciated Star Wars original trilogy's sci-fi stuff despite their age, but that won't stop me of asking this: Why are things like armor and ships in the prequal trilogy:

http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1377/90/1377904625390.jpg

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130619201430/starwars/images/6/64/N-1_Starfighter.png

Look more sleek and modern than stuff from the Original:

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130311053327/starwars/images/4/48/Ywing-SWE.jpg

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120428090841/deadliestfiction/images/7/71/StormtrooperCorps_anh1080p.jpg

As I remember there were a lot of seconds cut off important scenes in FC and nothing new added (contrary to the dvd case).

Blade Runner 2? Well, here is a trailer of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLZwWPCLO-w

It's virtually the same as far as content goes. A couple of slightly longer or alternate shots (more of the unicorn in Deckard's dream, some additional intercuts), some trimming in other scenes, all only a few seconds long.

But they did clean up the picture (boy, did they ever clean it up), completely new 4k master and absolutely pristine. It's gorgeous. And they got rid of a lot of mistakes they had to leave in, when they did the Director's Cut, because of budget constraints or limits of the CGI technology back in 1992. Now the serial number on the snake scale matches the one read out loud, the wires on the spinner cars are gone, Zhora stumbling through the glass has Joanna Cassidy's face instead of her stunt woman's, the pidgeon at the end flys up into a cloudy and gloomy dystopian sky instead of blue sky and sunshine in the Director's Cut...stuff like that.

*edited for incorrect statement*

Nope, they did not cut anything important. The Final Cut got rid of

- ~4.5 seconds of Deckard dangling from the edge of a building and 6 seconds of him stumbling about on it's roof
- 25 seconds of Deckard waiting for his food
- 11 seconds of Deckard looking at some more photos after the unicorn dream

All other changes have either increased the running time (see below) or kept it intact, only adding alternative shots.

- 8 seconds of Deckard at the piano before the unicorn dream
- 16 seconds of Deckard wandering the streets after visiting the snake merchant
- again 16 seconds of Deckard wandering the streets before going into the bar
- 9 seconds of additional and alternative takes of Roy and Tyrell
- 10 seconds of Pris fighting Deckard
- 5 seconds of Roy driving himself on with a nail through the hand

So what? It's an alternative history where the world went to crap long before we developed TFTs and sleek iPod-ish design and what have you. Having a Blade Runner dystopia look like JJ Abrams' Star Trek would be so wrong in so many (actually all) ways.

Not exactly like JJ Abrams Star Trek, more like Mass Effect, System Shock 2, Dead Space, and Deus Ex (Human Revolution minus the emphasis on yellow)

Really depends. Harrison (doing the Deckard role)has aged pretty well considering his age compared to a lot of actors around same age range. Having said that cant see him doing any more movies which has a lot of action (BD had a decent amount but story was a bit more important). If BR2 is similar to first action wise, i could see him having a main (if not *the* main role).

Blade Runner is a better looking movie than 90% of the movies that come out of Hollywood these days, because it has style and no computer graphics. Not to mention the soundtrack puts 90% of Hollywood movies these days to shame.

Not sure I understand, because I think the return of original Indy/ Harrison Ford was arguably one of the best parts of Indiana Jones 4, but certainly not the worst. If anything, they just threw in some unnecessary CGI effects, but overall it wasn't -that- bad. It was a pretty entertaining adventure/action movie, just didn't quite live up to its prequels and the expectations of the fandom. ( Similar to Prometheus. ) I suspect a Blade Runner 2 would likely be destined to a similar fate, regardless of what they do with it. There are those who feel it's a sacrilege to even consider a remake or sequel, so there's no way to please all of the original fanbase. Myself, I'd definitely be interested in watching it, but I'm not sure I trust them to really pull this off successfully.

I'll have to give it another look then - see if i can borrow my mates tinned edition with all three versions in it

I don't know, guys. Maybe Scott has learned from Prometheus, maybe he realises what made the first movie special and... nah, who am I kidding.

I won't even bother watching the trailer and would rather never hear of this again. At least there's a decent chance that this shameless cash-grab will bomb at the box office.