Should they make a third Blade Runner? Who should direct?

Both Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 failed at the box office. I thought the first was ahead of it's time, but the 2049 is far superior. Personally, I think it is a masterpiece. Thing is, studios are all about the bottom line, so the likelihood of a third Blade Runner being made is extremely low. But speaking hypothetically, should they make a third Blade Runner? who would you want to direct it?

I know Nolan is a huge fan of Blade Runner, and as an auteur himself I think he would do a fine job in completing the trilogy and making it one of the best trilogies ever made.

I think you need to go prequel, tell a story about the first Blade Runners and replicants in a mining colony. As for who to direct, I wouldn't mind seeing Joel Edgerton's take on a space travel. The problem with Nolan is we've seen his science fiction film in Interstellar, I doubt Nolan would step in and work on a new franchise. I think the next step for Nolan is either a horror film or an adventure one.

Noir (Following)
Postmodern (Memento)
Detective (Insomnia)
Fantasy (Prestige)
Super Hero (Dark Knight Trilogy)
Action (Inception)
Science Fiction (Interstellar)
War (Dunkirk)

Probably not. Nobody would be a good choice to direct. Mystique and atmospheric movies are best left as stand-alones, although I appreciated the sequel being made.

As always, it's a question of whether or not they've got a good enough reason to do it. Part of me would want to see another just because I do like the first two so much, but I also question how much more it could build upon the established themes and aesthetics. As for who I'd want to direct it, definitely not Nolan. His sense of aesthetics is too dull to match up to the rich visuals of Blade Runner and I don't think he'd bring anything on a narrative/thematic level that wasn't already done as well as could be in 2049.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

That's a solid idea. Another sequel on the BR story wouldn't bring anything new, but a prequel based on what was hinted at in the original might work and would be interesting.

The Kurt Russell movie Soldier was meant to be a “side-quel” to Blade Runner about the mining colonies. Uh. I don’t know why I know that but there it is.

In any case my answer is no. 2049 was risky enough and the box office returns don’t really give anyone with the power to green light a 3rd installment the incentive to do so. We’ll get that Dune adaptation though. That’s cool.

Panos Cosmatos.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

This may sound a bit melodramatic, but, ..John Carpenter should come out of retirement and direct the 3rd installment.


I believe if John can muster at least 55% of his past wrangling of character work, he'd do a great job.

I'd also vote to keep Nolan the hell away from the BR series. Seriously. Unless he could get Vangelis back to do the score. But honestly, that'll never happen. John Carpenter, bro. Let him score it, too.

I can't wait for Dune. Denis Villeneuve too. I about to embark on the novel.

What a great post. I like the idea of a prequel.

How, though? I try to picture a prequel along the lines of what Siddon suggested and it seems like it'd just end being a lesser variation on the original except with a different setting (and setting is a big part of what makes Blade Runner what it is or else you might as well be making an entirely different movie). I feel like there's a worthwhile hook in 2049 in the form of the replicant underground that K encounters late in the film that could evolve into something worthwhile across another installment, whereas a prequel would obviously come across as a backwards step.

I love the man, but he'd be a worse fit for the material than Nolan (and it's not like Cundey's track record of late is any better).

Just a fantasy. In my mind, he'd be on par with his early 80's output and even more sophisticated with mood, pace, and direction.

The problem with the setting is that they are now cost prohibitive. 2049 gave us Earth and Blade Runner gave us a city. But at the core of the series these are neonoir films and you need to tell compelling detective stories.

Blade Runner was about finding a group of fugitives.
2049 was about solving a mystery involving a lost child.
What if my Blade Runner was about a murder...the first murder by a replicant.

I think of AI (2001) and the marketing campaign
http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/a...eting-campaign
which was about the murder of Evan Chan



I'd love to see them tackle a story like that, where crime is just on the periphery. Are they man, machine or something else?


Do a hunt along spaceships, colony's, and space stations. It's going to be a whole lot cheaper than trying to redo a new futuristic earth. All of this should set up the final setting for the Blade Runner IP...a TV show.

I'd agree with you on Nolan, I think BR 2049 was already shifting things rather in his direction with a more conventional action thriller story and less ambitious visuals.

Honestly I think looking to turn Blade Runner into a mega blockbuster was always a rather questionable direction to go. The original maybe one of the biggest cult favourites in cinema but its still just that, a cult favourite not something akin to Starwars. I think they'd have been better off both cinematically and financially in keeping it to a smaller scale, maybe around $50-60 million budget.

Personally I never felt the need for more of the Deckard/Rachael story either, I think 2049 would have be better off staying with K and Joi's story on a smaller scale. Basically take the setting of Blade Runner and make something within it rather than following it up.

Looking at the original I always felt that characters like Deckard, Racheal and Roy were already covered enough to the degree we didn't need to see them or similar versions to them revisted. Solider for example beyond the less than amazing production values I don't think really brought that much that was new. Maybe characters given less focuslike Zhora, Pris or JF Sebastian might be better to revist(either directly or with a similar character)? Zhora especially seems like an interesting story that wasn't really covered going from sex slave to assassin to rebel.

As far as director go I actually felt Rogue One felt very Blade Runnerish visually at points and Gareth Edwards has given hints of being a good dramatic director as well. I would have said Duncan Jones a few years ago but his recent Blde Runnish effort wasn't well received.

I think it was somewhat justified in the increased sense of scale since it effectively had to show up decades' worth of imitators. Go big or go home.

That's one hell of a fantasy. I'd rather he did another Escape movie myself.

So...I, Robot?

Ya gotta go full fantasy or go home, my good man.

I, Robot meets LA Confidential was more where my mind was going.

I'd do a prequel, based on Roy's Tears in the Rain speech. He talks about the amazing things he's seen in his short life, and it works as a teaser for the audience as we hear about them, and then picture what Roy's life off world might have been like. If they make another installment, that's what I want to see, I want to see the things Roy seen.

"Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?
That's what it is to be a slave.
I've... ...seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched C-beams... ...glitter in the dark near the Tannhuser Gate.
All those... ...moments will be lost... ...in time... ...like... ...tears... ...in rain."

Rian Johnson