Print
Email
Share
Something is seriously wrong with Sir Ridley Scott. As he prepares his non-prequel prequel of Alien (something called Prometheus) for a Summer 2012 release comes word that the director wants to tackle yet another of his cinematic sacred cows. Yes, the man who turned Repilicants into a thing of sci-fi sadness is out to remake his own Blade Runner. Conflicting reports deny the redux angle, suggesting that, like his current project, he’s looking to explore either the story before or after the original—and rest assured, anyone who wants a prologue or epilogue to the tale of Deckard and his robot lover would want no one but Scott behind the lens. Imagine the uproar if Zack Snyder, or Heaven forbid, Brett Ratner, was announced as connected to the project.
But what if he is really interested in reinventing the property, updating it for a new generation while exploring the technological perks that have come in the last 30 years. Are we ready for a 3D CG Blade Runner? Should the vision of a dystopian LA filled with architectural monstrosities and mixed race languages be replaced by digital imagination and the latest theatrical gimmick? While not a massive hit when it was first released, Runner, along with other seminal future shock titles of the era such as Brazil, represented the cutting edge of physical F/X final frontier. It was that always profitable combination of outrageous scope and realistic execution. Sure, some of the strings could be seen, but the outcome was guaranteed to stir your soul, not merely shift you in your seat.
For Scott, there is a lot to lose. Fans are already frustrated that his original Alien ideas have seemingly been swept aside (much like the script for Robin Hood, formerly known as Nottingham) for something less creative and more commercial. Worries also arise regarding cut, approach, studio support, returning (or rewritten) characters, and of course, the Olympic struggle of supplementing a revered genre classic. Few films have the undying support of Blade Runner. Unlike Star Wars or the various Potter permutations, it has always been speculation without the silly slapstick undercurrent. Scott wasn’t out to make an adventure. He was out to make a statement.
And now he wants to rewrite it—or at the very least, wallow in its perceived greatness one more time. With a career path as of late that’s as confusing as it is criticized, Scott is far, far away from his heyday as a celebrated auteur. Even since going “Hollywood,” or put another way, when making mainstream movies became more important that making art, the director has nosedived. His last out, the aforementioned flop featuring a foolish rewrite of Sherwood Forest’s favorite son, was seen as a low watermark for a man unknown to such below grade standards—and when you toss in every title since he was nominated for an Oscar for Gladiator, he’s definitely dimmed from his brightness before.
So naturally one would want to return to the scene of their previous triumphs, and fans always hope that the originator, not some hack wannabe or follower, would get the nod to negotiate the new spin. But just like the argument currently circulating over Tinseltown’s tendency to re-reinvent their past instead of forging a new future, going back to Blade Runner seems foolish. It’s a folly that only an arrogant, out of touch talent can envision as working. Of course, since he’s already broached that arena with all the Alien talk (with Messageboard Nation’s original skepticism and eventual geek support), perhaps he does know what he’s doing.
Of course, the next question becomes—when does it stop? Does he take on Legend next? Go back and revisit The Duelist or Thelma and Louise, or do another peplum just to keep Russell Crowe in bail money? Scott’s opulent approach and clear visual panache would be perfected suited for so many newer ideas that to retread old ones seems suspect. Clearly, for a filmmaker capable of great and grand things, few are offering him the chance to experiment. The system bears some of the blame if all they are interested in is a willing wizard from days gone long by keen to rework his magic for a few extras pieces of gold.
Yet the element of entitled blasphemy still exists, a crowded and vocal contingent who will never accept anything but the original—like those against the ‘80s concept of colorization with a less logical argument on their side. Indeed, there are fans so invested in what Scott created originally that nothing short of its ascension into actual reality would satisfy. The very best that everyone involved has to offer could result in a rewriting of the rules regarding Blade Runner and the dedication to the foundation would still find a flaw. This is the shitstorm that Scott walks into—a world already weary of his motives ready to pounce on his product before he even gets a studio greenlight. Even this article is guilty of proto-piling on, condemning something that hasn’t even had a chance to stand up and speak for itself.
As the next few news cycles click by, as the story gets rewritten and reinvented by PR reps and studio suits, the truth about what Ridley Scott wants to do (or not do) with Blade Runner will become clear. As casting is announced, ideas and possible narratives rumored and bounced back and forth, the conversation will turn from “why?” to “when?” In an era seemingly devoid of real risk, in a blockbuster business model where certainty has taken the place of any real chance, something already as set as Blade Runner seems like a solid pitch. The problem isn’t getting the public onboard. No, the real issue can never be addressed until Hollywood realizes it has a problem. The artform is apparently addicted to cannibalizing itself. Until it recognizes the need to, sometimes, leave well enough alone, stories like this will be more common… and concerning.
