Apparently, some fools over at Warner Bros. seem to think that the world is short one
Blade Runner sequel, and want to redress this. While, thankfully, there's still plenty of time for them to fail in their aim, I can't help but cast scorn on such an ill-founded idea. Top of the bill, what can they possibly bring to the setting and characters that could conceivably add to the original? As a meditation on slavery [*], the story is complete - what more of value can be said? Secondly, in spawning a sequel (or, worse, a prequel) they'll doubtless have to finally legitimise one of the number of cuts of the original film - which group of fans do they wish to piss off more? Those fanboys who worship at the altar of Director-Knows-Best (regardless of deeper meaning), or those pretentious types [*] who value the (original) film for its loftier ambitions? Basically, while the possibility to be surprised is ever-present, what can any (pre-)sequel do that allows it to avoid antagonising disparate fans while being of interest to everyday cinema-goers or to those with a critical bent? Oh, wait - I forgot - it need only make buckets of cash ...
[*] At least as I read it. As I've harangued friends endlessly in the past, the only
cut of the film worth a damn is the
original theatrical release. Sure, it's not what "
The Master" wanted (of whom, can I just say
Gladiator - WTF?), and it's not without its own flaws, but it's the only one that has a meaningful story arc. Namely: human killer sent to "retire" repressed and ostensibly valueless replicants is shown, through various (violent) events, that they have moral value and ultimately comes to spare and rescue one of them. This has a lot more weight than: unknowing replicant killer sent to "retire" fellow replicants ultimately realises that he is one of them. But what do I know?
2 comments:
Let's hope not. But in the meantime, we could just cross our fingers and think of the man in the high castle.
After already questionably favouring the original release of Blade Runner, I'm probably now going to reveal myself as irredeemably low brow ...
I'm afraid that I'm not a PKD fan. I think his ideas have occasionally been translated (albeit heavily-filtered) into good films, but I can't say I've particularly enjoyed any of his novels. I did quite like We Can Build You, but even then I didn't think it was great.
I think it's partly because I'm not a fan of reality/perception distorting sci-fi (except where it's super-hard like Egan), but is largely because PKD is too ill-disciplined a writer. Sure, the ideas are good, but he can't marshal them into a satisfying narrative. At least in the novels I've read.
I did read a great defence of PKD by the contemporary writer Jonathan Lethem, "You Don't Know Dick", but I couldn't really buy into its thesis because of my experience with PKD.
Post a Comment