BladeZone's Off World Forums

If you?re not in favour of a sequel, there?s no need to post in this thread, we are all fully aware of the reasons against a sequel or a prequel, or we can look them up in other threads.

I am undecided, and I would like opinions on the following:

If there was to be sequel do you agree that it should be done with the original cast? I do, I can?t see anyone else playing Deckard, it has to be Ford, likewise for the rest of the characters. At least use as many as possible (i.e. alive and willing) and if one of the original actors is not available ?for use? then by no means replace them.

For me it would be ok to include some new characters, and answer some questions relating to the first film.

The above imply that given the actors? ageing, the sequel would have to take place a good 20 years after the original events. Also, I think Rachel shouldn?t be a part of it; I don?t want to see the continuation of a sloppy love story that wasn?t very convincing in the first place (at least for me) and she should be dead anyway.

I remember seeing somewhere an idea regarding Roy Batty being in the possible sequel as a ghost that visits Deckard; I think that?s a good idea, I think it?s the only half-decent way of having Batty appear in the sequel. Having him appear as a clone, or twin bother, or same model just wouldn?t be right. Similarly, having his persona/soul/memory somehow stored and available in some machine would be too cheesy, (yes, even cheesier than him appearing as a ghost). At least with him appearing as a ghost, you could argue that it?s just Deckard imagining it.

Are you familiar with Jeters books (br2 replicant night etc.)???in those batty comes back as the "origional" human batty was copied after...kind of pre Jango fett

sorry ...just had to bring up the thoughts before someone else did...though only really cheesy as a result of jango fett.

oh well...

there actually was talk of a blade runner 2 in the Blade Runner FAQ (www.brmovie.com). it was called "blade runner down", but whoever owns the rights to blade runner didnt appprove of a sequal, so it was a no go.

as for the "sequal" books, i think batty, the "real" batty, or templant, was really a replicant, and not the actual templant, because you could tell on "the action in the hideout" scene. i am on the border of wanting a sequal. i didnt want a 3rd terminator because i was affraid it might suck, but now that i see it, im not dissappointed. as long as the sequal is good, and doesnt ruin anything from the first one, im all for it.

ridleynoir-Can?t say I am familiar with those books, but thanks , I?ll check them out


THX1138- , I?m not exactly sure what you mean by ?templant? in this instance

I think he means template...the master that all the copys are made from???

Templant is the word Jeter gives to the original human (Template)
Just like Replicant is the word given to those replicated from the Template.

yeah. jeter called them "templants" in the book, not templates.

I think the problem most of us see is that there is no improving upon our beloved masterpiece. Sure we would love to be taken back to that world again, but not in a superfluous or worse a shoddy manner.

I agree, if it was well done i would be for it. But how do you improve on blade runner?

BULLET TIME! \:twisted:/