Ridley Scott Directing New ‘Blade Runner’ Movie

Published 4 years ago by , Updated September 18th, 2012 at 8:23 am,

Ridley Scott directing new Blade Runner movie Ridley Scott Directing New Blade Runner Movie

Click here for an update on the Blade Runner movie

Ridley Scott will revisit the Alien franchise next year with Prometheus, a spinoff project that takes place in the same universe as his classic 1979 sci-fi/horror tale. It turns out that won’t be the only one of the legendary filmmaker’s famous sci-fi titles that he’ll be returning to.

Word has gotten out that Scott is now committing to direct and produce a new installment in the Blade Runner franchise, based on his acclaimed 1982 adaptation of seminal sci-fi author Philip K. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”

Deadline is reporting that Scott plans to both direct and produce a new Blade Runner movie, working alongside Alcon Entertainment heads Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove (The Blind Side). It has yet to be revealed if the project the trio are developing is a prequel, sequel, or spinoff.

When Alcon and Warner Bros. acquired the rights to the Blade Runner series earlier this year, there was talk from the studio heads about how their dream pick to direct a new installment would be either a filmmaker who could replicate the approach Scott took in his original project (Christopher Nolan was cited as a specific example) – or Scott himself. It seems that the latter has enjoyed the experience of revisiting one of his previous sci-fi creations (Prometheus) enough to do it again.

Ridley Scott on the set of 'Blade Runner'

Blade Runner didn’t fare so well at the box office back in 1982, when sci-fi fans were more interested in checking out Steven Spielberg’s E.T. However, Scott’s film is now considered a cinematic masterpiece for its clever blend of pseudo-science and Noir genre elements – as well as its thought-provoking examination of issues concerning the very meaning of the word “humanity,” among other things. The film’s bleak, yet evocative, imagery of Los Angeles in the early 21st century has also become iconic in the years since its initial release; its influence on filmmakers is readily apparent, especially in similar philosophical sci-fi flicks like The Matrix, Dark City, or Inception.

Back when news first broke about there being plans to make additional Blade Runner movies, most everyone felt it was simply a cash grab on the part of Warner Bros. There’s certainly still truth to that accusation (Hollywood is a business, after all), but the involvement of Scott should certainly pique interests among fans who would definitely enjoy spending more time in the Blade Runner universe he devised.

We will keep you posted on the status of Scott’s new Blade Runner movie as the story develops.

Source: Deadline

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I haven’t been much of a fan of Scotts work recently, and I think its nice that if someone’s gonna revisit these classic movies, it might as well be the man himself. (though thoughts of George Lucas and star was keep popping in my head, push those aside).

    And call me ignorant but you keep saying Blade Runner series, as if there was more that one movie. Is there more? I always thought it was the one movie.

    • No, there’s only ever been the one Blade Runner film – sorry if there was some confusion about that.

    • No one is as deranged as Lucas to chop his most successful films up and redit them so that even die hards dont want to watch them. Scott is a little more savy than that and he can direct where Lucas simply goes thru the motions and hires other people to make him look good and slap his name on it.

    • I knew it wasn’t just me that kept thinking George Lucas when I read this…LOL

  2. If it was ANYONE other than Scott. I would have a plain and simple, old-fashioned hissyfit. This is awesome news.

  3. RIDLEY SCOTT DIRECTING??!! What do you know, THERE IS A GOD!!!!!

  4. Long as Greatest Actor of All Time Harrison Ford makes a comeback, my mind is open to it!

    • Unless they are going to do a Tron: Legacy CGI-style roll back the years on Harrison Ford, there’s no way he could be in it looking so old.

      Replicants don’t age, remember?

      • He’s not a replicant. But I agree with you. He should make a cameo as an experienced officer but I don’t think he should be the main focus.

        • Wasn’t he a replicant in the directors cut?

          • He was: the unicorn dream sequence clinches it. Editor Terry Rawlings said:- “It’s only logical, really. For instance, why would Olmos leave this tinfoil unicorn in Deckard’s apartment unless it was a clue that he knew that Deckard’s memories had been implanted? Besides, Ridley and I had many concrete conversations during the editing of BR as to how to best suggest him being an android. One nice way was the scene of Deckard’s eyes glowing, when Harrison’s at the doorway of his kitchen behind Sean Young. Ridley had blocked that out very carefully; he purposefully put Harrison in the background of that shot, and slightly out of focus, so that you’d only notice his eyes were glowing if you were paying attention.”

            That being the case, Gaff’s cryptic line “You’ve done a man’s job, sir” at the end also makes a lot more sense.

        • Fairly certain that everyone involved, Scott, Ford and the writers, have all confirmed that Deckard was a replicant. Fact.

  5. I may be going against the grain on this one and would actually prefer someone else directing with Scott producing. This seems kind of a cop-out to make some extra cash.

  6. This is interesting, although Scott always seemed to me like a director that is constantly evolving: Spielberg and other A-list directors have maintained a pretty consistent directorial style over the years, arguably because while skilled they’re pretty “plain” or, if you feel that term debases them, “academic”.

    Scott, on the other hand, definitely upgraded his style as time passed: the original Blade Runner and the first Alien movie can be seen as pretty dated today, if only style-wise, while more recent directorial exploits on his part have a distinct contemporary feeling about them (and this isn’t necessarily a good thing, as he seems to have picked up the frenetic and frankly annoying way of editing action sequences these days). Regarding Prometheus, he even said he’s been galvanized by working on 3D and that he means to never make a movie without this new technology again, which clearly defines him as a person that’s open to change.

    That said, the fact he’s returning to a narrative universe he created himself should probably be enough for us to rest assured the new movie will stay “true to the original”.
    But as far as pure cinematography is concerned, it’s likely not going to “feel” much like the original at all. I think it’s a pretty fair assumption that it’ll feel like a new Ridley Scott movie.

    • Not really Blade Runners is still pretty EPIC compared to todays standards.

    • There’s nothing ‘dated’ about Blade Runner. It’s still better than 90% of modern movies.

      • DSB I have to disagree with you. It’s very dated even if you still love it you gotta admit it’s very dated. Everything about it screams 80’s scifi movie heck 80’s production quality. It looks and feel like an early 80’s movie. It has poor dialogue and only two good performances acting wise. The clothing and hair styles screams 80’s cliche scifi film. For some reason in the 80’s to mid 90’s people had this horribly idiotic look of what the future would be. Harrison Ford , and a good Plot are the only things that keep it from looking like a B movie. I would say it’s better than maybe 40% of modern movies, but that’s an optimistic number.

        • It looks like an early 80’s movie because IT IS an early 80’s movie. If anything is cliche about this movie it’s becausae nearly every Sci-Fi film since has borrowed from IT. At the time it was very new and fresh. I think that has something to do with why it wasnt that successful at the Box Office. It was TOO different from what people had seen before. I’m sorry but I dont see the bad acting in here at all. Rutger Hauer gave the performance of his carrer. Brion James was fantastic and William Sanderson was absolutely brilliant. I can see Sean Youngs acting was a little wooden but she WAS a replicant after all. Try acting like a robot without ACTING like a robot. If any I would say Fords acting was the “worst”. It kinda reminds me of the documentarys of him script reading for Han Solo, but thats just his early acting. I respect your opinion but I really have to disagree.

          • I know it’s an early 80’s film and that’s why it looks like an early 80’s film. That’s my entire point and why I’m saying it looks dated now because it looks like an 80s film. That’s all I was saying on that specific point. That’s essentially the very definition of 80’s film.

            As far as the clitches it wasn’t the first film to do them. It had been around for year especially in B moives. Any time they tried to convey the future.

  7. I thire was at least one book sequel To blade runner as far as the “series thing goes .
    There might have been a few more .
    Trying to remember who wrote that sequel

  8. K.W. Jeter.
    He wrote two Blade Runner novels.
    Blade Runner 2:The Edge of Human.
    and Blade Runner: Replicant Night.

    • He wrote three actually…Eye and Talon was the third. Hard to find.

  9. if they re-cast Rick Deckard than Michael Fassbender for sure.. or if they do focus on the other blade runner Holden, like in the novels, i think Michael Fassbender would be a perfect fit. I am calling that Ridley will cast him since he sought him out for Prometheus

    • Yes Michael Fassbender in for the New Blade Runner movie. But make it a prequel; origins of the Replicants. Fassbender could be to Ridley as Christian Bale could be to Nolan for their respective movies.

  10. Blade Runner pretty-much invented Cyberpunk. Anime and manga was changed because of it. (for example…Ghost in the shell, Battle angel Alita etc..) I would have loved to see a quality ongoing anime series continuing the Blade Runner world. It would make a great companion piece to what this movie may become.

    That being said, this could be really great. I’m looking forward to it.

  11. Blade Runner is one of my all time favorites, I just watched it the other night, I hope they can do it justice and make a great updated version, I would like nothing more than that.

  12. this just reinforces my opinion that Hollyweird has run out of original ideas, so they just keep remaking the same movies….c’mon, enough of the remakes, reboots, etc.

    • While I do agree that Hollywood should make more original films, at least we can say this one is being handled by the right people. This is more about utilizing the technology that has cone out in the past 30 years to expand upon his own creation. Thats a he’ll of alot better than a full fledged remake with *shutter* Robert Patterson. There are some film makers you can just trust. Nolan, Fincher, and Scott is one of them

    • i am with you on hollywood is running out of ideas, but blade runner was a series of books.. if blade runner came out a year after E.T. it would have been a hit and spawned multiple movies, well that is if, harrison ford and ridley made up back then…. and even in the books they follow not only Deckard, but Holden.. blade runner is one of the best sci fi movies of all time.. i am very happy they are going to go back to that instead of all these corny teen movies.. even how he has rebooted alien franchise and make a new trilogy off of prometheus is extremely exciting

  13. While I love Blade Runner (hated it the first time, loved it after multiple viewings) I really don’t think this movie needs to happen. It will be difficult to make that world feel the same way as Blade Runner did. The original film’s world is like a futuristic version of the 1980s, complete with 80s clunker computers and hair metal fashion. I think a remake will either attempt to recreate this world as best as possible, or fail miserably by updating all the tech and fashion in the film. I am very cautious about this remake.

    • Good points, Taylor. The score’s a major part of BR’s feel as well, and would be another retro-futuristic element that’d be difficult to reproduce, even if Vangelis is up for it again.

      • That didn’t occur to me, but you’re absolutely right. Those retro-trumpet synthesizers are put to excellent use in the first film. Curious to see how this all plays out.

  14. As long as it is not a…. *gags* remake im all in.

  15. Indy was a replicant, Scott said he was

    Great news

    • Scott didnt write the book.

  16. Book ain’t canon for the film. The book has almost nothing to do with the film in fact

  17. Not sure how I feel about this, on the one hand I really like Blade Runner, on the other a sequel seems unnecessary and dangerous. It could not be as good as the original, and I either want something as good or better, or nothing at all.

  18. BR is one of my all-time favorites, but honestly, based on recent work I think I’d rather see Christopher Nolan. At least it isn’t a remake.

    The idea that Deckard is a replicant completely destroys the point of the story (and doesn’t make much sense anyway, if you think about it). I hated that aspect of the director’s cut, even though it was an improvement in some ways.

  19. I’m a big fan of Ridley Scott and honestly I wouldn’t of watched it with anyone else directing. I’m looking forward to it I’d love to see Blade Runner with modern effects.

  20. Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa

    A New Blade Runner?

    Has Ridley Scott gone the way of George Lucas or is this going to be pure cinematic genius?

    I sadly think the former.

    • It’s a tough one, greenknight. I admire Ridley Scott’s technical prowess, but to be honest he hasn’t made a single movie since Blade Runner that I’ve thought came anywhere near the same level of creativity or impact (and he and his brother should both be slapped about the face and head for producing that butchery of The Andromeda Strain). Although his tinkering with Alien and BR has been for different reasons than George Lucas, there’s a similarity with the original Star Wars movie in that budget and technology limitations made necessity the mother of invention. Throwing money and empty effects at a movie invariably leads to greater studio pressures to recoup the investment and a more generic, soulless end product.

      I’d love to see him tackle another science fiction film, just not particularly one that has anything to do with BR. As Taylor points out, the production design is firmly rooted in the past now, and although it was one of the first to use elements from ITS past (Sean Young’s 1940s look, 1950s/’60s vehicles on the streets etc), it still came out two years before Scott’s own “1984” Apple Mac commercial at the dawn of widespread home computers. What I definitely don’t want to see is some extrapolation of the design aesthetics of 2011 or the computer-driven society we live in now. That retro side of BR’s technology also completely suited the “future noir” aspect – the familiarity of the hardboiled detective carrying only his wits and a gun with him…not an iPhone.

      The visual stylings of Alien and Blade Runner were totally unique, but became so influential that today the problem Scott’s going to face is one of looking like a late arrival at his own party. Hope he has a worthwhile story and a decent cast. Vangelis, Syd Mead, Moebius and Douglas Trumbull might help too. Keep the inevitable CGI cobblers to a minimum.

      • The Big Dentist

        I find it funny that we both respect and like Ridley, but almost for entirely different reason. You think he hasn’t made anything great since Blade Runner and I think his best work has been since Blade Runner.

        I’m among the few that find Blade Runner to be hugely over rated. I’m not saying it was bad it was a decent enough flick, but it had some really really bad dialogue and other than Ford most of the acting ranges from Mediocre to bad. It also has to many sterotypical cheesy scifi moments. I love scifi when it’s taken serious, but hate when it hits close to B level with some of it’s more cheesy moments. For me Blade Runner was a decent film, but never really seemed truly great to me.

        Since then though he’s made some great movies with Gladiator, Body of Lies, American Gangster, Matchstick Men, and Black Hawk Down. I can’t wait to see what he can with a Scifi film now that he has learned and grown over the years. I respect him so much and I’m a huge fan of his work over the past two decades. I enjoyed Blade Runner, but I just don’t think it’s anywhere near as good as it’s promoted to be. Maybe if I watched it when it was brand new and had the nastalgia to live off of. Sadly though I saw it in more modern times and couldn’t help but compare it to modern day cinema it just simply didn’t hold up. Low production values , poor dialogue and acting that is all over the place on top of cheesy outfits and hair. In 1982 I may of been impressed, but in 1999 I thought it was an decent film that missed the mark, but being more cheesy than it had to be.

        • Are you talking about the “directors cut” or the standard version?

          I have “Blade-Runner the directors cut” on Blu-Ray, and it’s awesome in this quality. I haven’t seen it since 2000 and I thought this is a new movie. It’s the best old movie on Blu-Ray I have ever seen so far. Some new movies didn’t look so good. I don’t know how they made it, and I wonder why not every movie looks this good on Blu-Ray.

          Blade Runner is one of my favourite movies of all time.
          You made a good point though. My father is a fan and showed it to me when I was about 13, in 1989,I was awed and excited and still am.

          So maybe you’re right about seeing it the first time in modern days is not so exciting. But I think it has aged very well and IMO no movie since then has captured such a intense, dark, disillusioning atmosphere.

          Fords acting is intended IMO, his interpretation of Decker is a disillusioned, introverted investigator.
          And don’t forget he is a replicant himself (at least in the directors cut), only created to hunt the other replicants, but he don’t realizes it until the end. To much emotions are not very helpfull on his mission, it would even handicap him, he develops some nonetheless.

          And the bad dialogue you mentioned, maybe you mean Deckers voiceover in the standard version. Again, it’s not there in the directors cut.

          • ALiens R us

            If you re read what I said you’ll notice I said the acting wasn’t good except for Ford. Ford was great as always not denying that. Most others though fall short.

            As far as dialogue I wasn’t really refering to voice overs I thought they were fine. I was talking about the conversations.

            • Oh, you’re right, I read over it, but I think the two main antagonists Ford and Hauer were excellent (particular Hauer), and Daryl Hannah too.
              Sean Youngs acting was weird, I have to admit that. I’m not aware of the other actors beeing bad.
              This movie is not so much about dialogue, I give you that, so I didn’t noticed it and doesen’t bother me to much.
              Maybe you should look the movie in german, perhaps it’s better dubbed.
              I’ve seen it in english and it was good, too ;).

        • Daniel, I always wonder how much the nostalgia factor figures in my (or anyone else’s) choice of movies, and the odd thing about BR is that I never actually saw it at a cinema when it came out; the version I did see on VHS had Ford’s bored, superfluous voiceover and the terrible, jarring “happy ending”. For years I regarded it as visually stunning but a wasted opportunity, and didn’t even like the Vangelis score either at the time. I think I wanted to hear something less melodic and more doom-laden, which probably says a lot about my frame of mind at the time. Then the Director’s Cut came out in 1991, and it was a revelation for me. Without the anchoring viewpoint of the narration I was forced to look closer at what the dialogue and the performances of every character were saying about themselves and the world they inhabited, and I found that what I’d skimmed over and virtually forgotten about or disregarded altogether was actually full of hidden subtleties, depth and humanity. It was literally like watching a different film altogether, and since then I never fail to find something new to appreciate in it.

          Finally got to see it on the big screen a couple of years ago when the Final Cut was released briefly for a couple of late-night showings at an IMAX cinema – so we’re talking a BIG screen, with a full-on bass-in-yer-bowels sound system to match. I knew the movie so well at that point that I could almost switch off from the main characters and concentrate on the sheer attention to detail in every single frame of the interiors, exteriors and special effects shots. I can be hyper-critical even of films I love, but instead of being taken out of it by sub-par or dated visuals I found myself actually immersed even more. Overwhelming, mesmeric, awesome – and I mean awesome in the true sense of the word rather than “awesome, dude”. I realise you have pretty much the opposite viewpoint and I know better than to try and change your mind on this one!

          • Big Dentist

            I wouldn’t go as far to say that I’m the opposite. I actually didn’t hate Blade Runner. I thought it was a decent enough film, but just didn’t find it to be great or amazing. It had a good plot and a lot of substance. Harrison Ford had a great performance. I just hate the dialogue and costume/hair in the so called ‘future’. I hate that a lot of older sci fi films think that people will look that horrible in the future. Mostly what bothers me is the dialogue and I thought all of the performances outside of Ford could of been much better.I also thught at time it dragged and got a little dull. I was bored during most of the action because I thought (and this is shocking but) Ridley did a bad job with the action scenes. They didn’t have me on the edge of my seat or even remotely interested. They were just boring.

            I still enjoyed Balde Runner over all because of the plot and the introspection/substance of it. It was a smart film with a lot of great ideas and had it been made in more modern times by a more modern Ridley Scott I’d of probably loved it. I see Blade Runner as a learning experience for Scott and because of it he got so much better. For me it was 3/5 Possibly a 3.5/5.

            Again though like I said i didn’t see it until right around 98/99. I’m not a fan of most films from the 70’s or 80’s. So to me it just looked like a really smart but not that well put together 80’s film.

  21. I’m expecting Scott to do for “Blade Runner” what he’s doing for “Alien”…

  22. Is it wrong what I want a sprawling L.A. Confidential style noir with multiple character arcs and a cast rivaling that of Prometheus?

  23. I don’t know. That movie had all the right stuff come together at the right time to work. I can’t see it happening again. That said I think Clive Owen would make an excellent Deckard. You could never replace Rutgar Hauer though.

    • Dont need to, his battery run out….

  24. If both Scott and Ford are involved, whoever suggested CGI on Ford ala Tron Legacy had a good idea, this could work. But it would need to be a big budget film with some other big names to bring in a massive audience. Blade Runner may be an absolute classic, but at the time it was a massive flop.
    And Scott struggled to find the finance for Prometheus.

    It probably won’t get made. But if it does, I really want to see Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I’ve watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate…..

  25. I am a huge fan of BR and have multiple versions of the movie. It depends what mood I’m in as to which version I watch. I also have the books by K.W.J. And have just reread Androids. I am intrigued by this new film. I wonder which direction it will go. If you’ve read any of the books theres so many ideas that could be incorporated. Without any of the main characters it may be just a film with a BR “feel”. There are so many movies that have the same feel and look but aren’t connected. I hope Ridley finds a really clever way of connecting the movies.
    As a side I also wonder if he will manage to get any Star Wars references in the new movie.

  26. This is going to be so SWEET!! Just hope this will not be another Star Wars Phantom Menace…. I’m sure Ridley will do a good job so long as the funding is available and he does not go too crazy with the CGI. Maybe we will finally find out dekard is a replicant afterall…..

    • Cheers!

    • How about yourself – what do you make of all this?

  27. Blade Runner is my favourite movie ever, I wasn’t a huge fan but all the hype about this film was huge and I wonder why this movie was a huge classic.

    I watched the movie on T.V and I think this movie is a classic masterpiece.

    If the studio is going to make another Blade Runner movie then I think the sequel should be a sequel/reboot like having it based in the same world and a new main lead character and also maybe a cameo from Harrison Ford.

    I hope Ridley Scott directs the sequel.

    • Ridley Scott is directing. The production company Alcon only purchased rights to produce Sequels and Prequels, not the rights to the original Blade Runner. So it will not be a reboot or a remake (Thank God).