And it’s a “liable to be a sequel” according to Scott himself, who was recently interviewed by the Wall Street Journal‘s Speakeasy blog.
When I first heard about this project, back in the summer, it was unclear whether the movie would be a prequel or a sequel. But saying I was intrigued would be falling short. Blade Runner wasn’t much of a hit when it was released in theaters back in 1982, but I could never get my eyes off it — without fail — every single time I rented it (Yes. On VHS). And I rented it several times between the age of 14 and 19. How many, I can’t recall. Like Scott’s prior work Alien, I just can’t get it out of my mind.
I didn’t see Blade Runner on the big screen till 1990 or so (awfully scratched print). And when the Director’s Cut was released in theaters in ’92, I actually drove 2 hours to see it (and it’s not that I’m a sci-fi geek. I drove 3 hours to see Robert Altman’s The Player — I was living in a small Texas bordertown at the time). In 2007, Warner Bros. celebrated Blade Runner‘s 25th Anniversary with another theatrical release (digitally remastered under Scott’s supervision as a so-called “Final Cut”). I drove about 40 minutes to see that one on the big screen, mostly because of L.A. traffic. That’s how much I enjoy the film. And I know I’m not alone in this. The truth is, it’s a strong film. And despite it’s sci-fi/neo-Noir wrapping, I believe it has plenty to recommend it to mainstream audiences.
The visuals and sound design in Blade Runner are simply arresting. And the narrative — based on a short story by the prolific Phillip K. Dick — ain’t bad either, focused as it is not only on a multiple manhunt (synthetic manhunt?) but also on the existential angst of the characters, grappling from their own particular points of view with the sadness of the human condition. But not in that annoying French New Wave way. This is an American movie. A Hollywood movie. It just happens to come across as artsy because it is beautiful to watch and hear.