Alcon Plotting 'Blade Runner' Prequels And Sequels

[Paroxysm]

I don't know if this has been posted but...

LOS ANGELES, CA, MARCH 3, 2011—Warner Bros-based financing and production company Alcon Entertainment (“The Blind Side,” “The Book of Eli”) co-founders and co-Chief Executive Officers Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove, in the most significant property acquisition negotiations in the Company’s 13-year history, are in final discussions to secure film, television and ancillary franchise rights to produce prequels and sequels to the iconic 1982 science-fiction thriller “Blade Runner.”

Alcon is negotiating to secure the rights from producer-director Bud Yorkin, who will serve as producer on “Blade Runner” along with Kosove and Johnson. Cynthia Sikes Yorkin will co-produce. Frank Giustra and Tim Gamble, CEO’s of Thunderbird Films, will serve as executive producers.

Alcon’s franchise rights would be all-inclusive, but exclude rights to remake the original. The Company, however, may produce projects based on situations introduced in the original film. The project would be distributed domestically by Warner Bros. International rights are yet to be determined.

Johnson and Kosove stated: “We are honored and excited to be in business with Bud Yorkin. This is a major acquisition for our company, and a personal favorite film for both of us. We recognize the responsibility we have to do justice to the memory of the original with any prequel or sequel we produce. We have long-term goals for the franchise, and are exploring multi-platform concepts, not just limiting ourselves to one medium only.”

Among its many distinctions, “Blade Runner” has been singled out as one of the greatest movies of all time by countless polls and media outlets, and overwhelmingly as the greatest science-fiction film of all time by a majority of genre publications.

Released by Warner Bros. almost 30 years ago, "Blade Runner" was adapted by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples from Philip K. Dick's novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and directed by Ridley Scott following his landmark “Alien.” The film was nominated for two Academy Awards (Best Visual Effects, and Best Art Direction).

“Blade Runner” was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." The film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry in 1993 and is frequently taught in university courses. In 2007, it was named the 2nd most visually influential film of all time by the Visual Effects Society.

Alcon’s COO Scott Parish and head of business affairs David Fierson are negotiating on behalf of the Company.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/03/alcon-plotting-blade-runner-prequels-and-sequels/

 

[kvz5]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mov...quel-new-movie-ridley-scott-alcon-remake.html

Producers of new 'Blade Runner' movie: Here's what we can do with our film (oh, and we'd love to bring back Ridley Scott)

As Ridley Scott shoots "Prometheus," the don't-call-it-an-Alien-prequel, another Scott classic could be making its way to the big screen. The producers behind "The Book of Eli" and "Insomnia" announced this afternoon they were putting the finishing touches on a deal to acquire the rights to Scott's dystopian classic "Blade Runner."

The company, Alcon Entertainment, is acquiring rights that will allow them to make a movie with elements from both Scott's 1982 movie and the Phillip K. Dick novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" on which it's based.

The company isn't buying remake rights — in fact, co-founder Broderick Johnson says "we never would want to remake it — but they do think there's a rich vein of material for a prequel or sequel, which they will be entitled to make. (They'd also be allowed to build off scenes from the original.)

"The 'Blade Runner' lore is kind of irresistible," Alcon co-founder Andrew Kosove told 24 Frames from Atlanta, where he and Johnson are on the set of their Queen Latifah comedy "Joyful Noise." "And the extraordinary pace of technological advancement since the movie came out means that there are a lot of opportunities to do something fresh."

A story of "replicants" (robots that are indistinguishable from humans) who return illegally to a dystopian Los Angeles, the Harrison Ford-Sean Young original mines neo-noir conventions and also explores religious themes, while Ford's Rick Deckard chases down said replicants.

Although the movie was not a commercial success upon release, it became an enduring hit on television and home video, and fans are likely to find themselves both intensely curious about a new film while taking very seriously any attempt to tinker with it.

Kosove and Johnson say they're aware of that affection and don't treat it lightly. "The risk is not just getting a movie made but coming up with a story that really justifies coming back one to one of the great science-fiction stories," Kosove, who with Johnason is producing the movie with original co-executive producer Bud Yorkin, said.

There may be more immediate issues, though.

The original was set in 2019, a year that seemed very far away in 1982 but that seems pretty close now. A prequel wouldn't allow for a setting too many years beyond our own. (The producers say they're not concerned because technology changes quickly and anyway, Johnson says, this would be set in an alternative universe.)

Still, filling in parts of the back story of a tale we already know isn't easy, as George Lucas could tell you.

As for a sequel, the trick, the pair say, would be to find new elements that are neither too close to or too far from the story laid out in the original.

There's also the question of whether the first film has become too influential for its own good.

"A lot of filmmakers have borrowed from 'Blade Runner' in the intervening years, and we want to make sure we don't look like we're borrowing from the movies that borrowed from it," Kosove said. "Coming up with something original on our part is a real threshold issue." He added: "We know there are tremendous challenges here."

Although Alcon has financing for their films and a deal to distribute its pictures through Warner Bros, the process is still early and tenative; there is, at this point, no screenwriter or director. And as for the elephant — or director — in the room? "We haven't met Ridley," Kosove said. "but the thought of re-engaging with his artistic vision is very exciting, and [him directing] is something we think would be wonderful."

It's hard to avoid thoughts of "Tron," another techno-themed 1982 movie that also wasn't a hit in its time. For all their differences, both movies anticipated social and technological changes, but only came to be appreciated for it later.

Of course, from a commercial standpoint a sequel to that one worked out pretty well.

 

[Secret Fawful]

Blade Runner doesn't need prequels and sequels and threequels and dayquils and nightquils. My mouth is fooooaaaaammmming.

 

[Frodo]

The thing I liked about the original is that the ending, depending on which you prefer, left so much up to the audience to interpret. It wasn't suppose to be a francise as the story has so many different themes that go beyond just the world we see. There really isn't a straight narrative in the original and it was more of a series of character pieces as opposed to single narrative series like the Terminator films.

Any sequel would undoubtly have to rise to such a level that it would let people down no matter what , even if Ridley was involved . With that said, I think there are stories that could be told in that world , but the problem is that even if Deckard returned for a sequel, it would be spoiling the fun of the original in basically telling the audience what happened to Rachel and Deckard as opposed to the original which left it up in the air.

If Deckard isn't in it , and it focuses on a new Bladerunner or Bladerunners chasing new Replicants , would the audience really care? I mean , you'd have to have at least one character from the original like Gaffe make an appearence but I doubt that would be enough. And would any replicant really rise to the badass level of Roy Batty?

Plus you'd have to address the controversal issue as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant and then that would alienate half of the fanbase of the original no matter which side you take.

 

[craigdbfan]

They should honestly do a closer adaptation of "Do androids dream of electric sheep?".

Anyone who's read it can attest that its very different from Blade Runner and brilliant in its own way. I defintely like the book more actually. Mercer, mood organ, and Decker for me are more likable in this. Blade Runner is a great movie but the book is different enough that a closer adaptation is warranted. Oh he's also married to a woman named Iran.

 

[Doc Ock]

Honestly, this may be a interesting idea. But I think a sequel or a prequel would work best without Deckard. So people wouldn't be let down if Harrison Ford wasn't playing him.

I suppose it kinda is a rich world to tell stories in. But Blade Runner is such a good film it doesn't need "quels" of any kind.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

People should finally realize that Ridley Scott is an old man by now. He won't be making many movies in the future.

on the whole subject: meh, but there might be some potential.

 

[Sgt.Pepper]

^ Exactly, there might be some potential they it could be good and a sequel/prequel sounds a bit interesting. But I rather not take that chance.

 

[Gunga Diner]

My face when Blade Runner prequel

 

[Solidus]

They should honestly do a closer adaptation of "Do androids dream of electric sheep?".

Anyone who's read it can attest that its very different from Blade Runner and brilliant in its own way. I defintely like the book more actually. Mercer, mood organ, and Decker for me are more likable in this. Blade Runner is a great movie but the book is different enough that a closer adaptation is warranted. Oh he's also married to a woman named Iran.

I'm a huge fan of all of Dick's books, but I did not like this one more. I think they stand on their own, but even Dick felt that Blade Runner captured different/more then what he did. I mean yea the stories are very different from one another, in how it all goes down, and through other methods since it is "words" and not visuals it talks more of the society itself from their religions to other vices in man during this time.

However I felt that Blade Runner captures more of the theme, and resonates longer with me. Do Androids Dream is a superb book, but I felt Dick has some better ones out there. I felt that Blade Runner was actually one of the few times I felt it was better then the book. And I remember in the documentary Dick was beyond happy of what he saw prior to his death.

They are two different things and both are good, but I think Blade Runner it self stands higher up then the book. After watching it many times I actually feel more emotion for Deckard in the film, but to eaches own.

Man in the High Castle is one of my favs of Dick, I have not read it in years and years some day I should read it again.

However this news......I dunno the world of Dick is vast, and I'm sure they could come up with some original stories and themes that are not directly using Deckard or anything. If they keep away from him I"m sure they could have a great plot that is unique on its own.

 

[DACrowe]

Just no. That's all I will say.

 

[Octoberist]

This deal just reminds of the fiasco with Terminator Salavation.

 

[craigdbfan]

I'm a huge fan of all of Dick's books, but I did not like this one more. I think they stand on their own, but even Dick felt that Blade Runner captured different/more then what he did. I mean yea the stories are very different from one another, in how it all goes down, and through other methods since it is "words" and not visuals it talks more of the society itself from their religions to other vices in man during this time.

However I felt that Blade Runner captures more of the theme, and resonates longer with me. Do Androids Dream is a superb book, but I felt Dick has some better ones out there. I felt that Blade Runner was actually one of the few times I felt it was better then the book. And I remember in the documentary Dick was beyond happy of what he saw prior to his death.

They are two different things and both are good, but I think Blade Runner it self stands higher up then the book. After watching it many times I actually feel more emotion for Deckard in the film, but to eaches own.

Man in the High Castle is one of my favs of Dick, I have not read it in years and years some day I should read it again.

However this news......I dunno the world of Dick is vast, and I'm sure they could come up with some original stories and themes that are not directly using Deckard or anything. If they keep away from him I"m sure they could have a great plot that is unique on its own.

Can't say the same. The book really made an impact on me but I love the Mercer part of the story which brings up some great ideas about faith. Something thats omitted from Blade Runner.

Along with a large emphasis on owning real animals as a form of prestige was great too. I love Blade Runner but DADOES really just got my attention like no other science fiction story has really got to me, Dick was able to open a vivid screen into what he was trying to convey. Just one of my personal favorites.

In regards to Dick he was actually really disappointed with the initial script and even went public denouncing the entire project but your right that all of that really changed once WB and the Ladd company got involved and started treating Philip with the respect he deserved.

Thankfully the final product was great and he really applauded People's input into the screenplay which he called "a beautiful, symmetrical reinforcement of my work". I wouldn't personally go as far as to say Dick found it better than his original piece because I'm sure he still prefers it over an adaptation. He did write Androids after all.

He did love Blade Runner when they did the private screening for him like you mentioned. Bittersweet he died 3 months after :

 

[Spider-Fan]

This is a stupid idea. Leave it alone!

 

[Marvolo]

No...No...Hell No! (Will smith voice) I'm not someone who is against prequels or sequels, but this movie needs neither. Come on Hollywood be original for a change.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I wonder what even really spurred this decision. I guess Blade Runner has seen a great rediscovery in the last two and an half decades, but surely Warner hasn't forgot that it was a pretty large flop in its time (admittedly, a lot of that probably came about due to studio meddling, but I'm not sure if I'm entirely convinced it'd be a success otherwise).

I can, at least, see some potential here. Exploring what Deckard did post-escape could make a neat little story. And maybe even seeing the replicants enslaved and eventually escaping could, as well. Not necessary by any means, but something could be there.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think sales of the DVD probably spurred this, since it got the film back on people's radar.

 

[Figs]

I would skip both a prequel and sequel to Blade Runner, especially a prequel.

I would hate to see them try to show Batty witnessing "Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion". It's one of those things that is best left to dialogue and the imagination.

 

[Bunker]

There's a lot of potential left in this world. I would be down if they got a good enough director to do it.

 

[Paroxysm]

Producers Want A Christopher Nolan-Like Take For ‘Blade Runner’ Prequel/Sequel, Would Love To Have Nolan Direct

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

In the right hands, I'd look forward to whatever they're planning.

 

[Solidus]

Can't say the same. The book really made an impact on me but I love the Mercer part of the story which brings up some great ideas about faith. Something thats omitted from Blade Runner.

Along with a large emphasis on owning real animals as a form of prestige was great too. I love Blade Runner but DADOES really just got my attention like no other science fiction story has really got to me, Dick was able to open a vivid screen into what he was trying to convey. Just one of my personal favorites.

In regards to Dick he was actually really disappointed with the initial script and even went public denouncing the entire project but your right that all of that really changed once WB and the Ladd company got involved and started treating Philip with the respect he deserved.

Thankfully the final product was great and he really applauded People's input into the screenplay which he called "a beautiful, symmetrical reinforcement of my work". I wouldn't personally go as far as to say Dick found it better than his original piece because I'm sure he still prefers it over an adaptation. He did write Androids after all.

He did love Blade Runner when they did the private screening for him like you mentioned. Bittersweet he died 3 months after :

To eaches own. I still love the book. It was just I felt the subtle themes and stories were much more potent and powerful in Blade Runner. I felt the Mercer thing was just not my thing I guess, I liked the emphasis of Tyrell and Batty, father and son, creator and his creation. Every time I see Blade Runner I fall in love with it more. And I've seen it a lot lol.

I wonder what even really spurred this decision. I guess Blade Runner has seen a great rediscovery in the last two and an half decades, but surely Warner hasn't forgot that it was a pretty large flop in its time (admittedly, a lot of that probably came about due to studio meddling, but I'm not sure if I'm entirely convinced it'd be a success otherwise).

I can, at least, see some potential here. Exploring what Deckard did post-escape could make a neat little story. And maybe even seeing the replicants enslaved and eventually escaping could, as well. Not necessary by any means, but something could be there.

See I don't want anything with Deckard I think. I think they could create a new character in the world of Blade Runner. I think there is so much potential for great sci fi stories in the Blade Runner world (Dick's world) however I think leave Deckard's story alone and let it stand alone.

I could see some great new stories (even detective like ones) that delver further into the world, and ask different themes.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I have no issue with a movie made in the Blade Runner universe, even one about another Blade Runner set years on, where Deckard is seen as a cautionary, almost mythical, tale, no prequel though.

it was named the 2nd most visually influential film of all time by the Visual Effects Society.

What was 1st?

 

[bullets]

This is a remake/reboot in disguise. I just hope they stray away from Deckard's story

 

[Solidus]

I have no issue with a movie made in the Blade Runner universe, even one about another Blade Runner set years on, where Deckard is seen as a cautionary, almost mythical, tale, no prequel though.

I don't mind if it is a prequel (in terms of the time period like 2018) but I agree, just no connection to Deckard, maybe a quick comment about him, or something, but nothing that takes away from what Blade Runner is.