Ridley Scott Onboard with New Blade Runner Film

The implication I was trying to make was that if done well a movie with modern special effects can in fact look very good. I wasn't saying Blade Runner needed the overblown "Avatar" 3D treatment. A more appropriate example of what I meant is like what they did with the remastered Star Trek TOS episodes a few years ago. With subtle improvements and tweaking a "remastered" version of the 1982 film would look extra-amazing.

If done well a Blade Runner prequel or sequel might be nice to see. I'm just less excited about the prospect of a direct remake of the 1982 film. Remaster it? Sure. Remake it? Why?

The computer in this case wasn't even magically "seeing" around corners. Using imaging enhancement the computer was focusing in on a mirror in the picture and "seeing" what was being reflected by it. The irony of this criticism is that computer technology today will allow for this kind of processing - this bit of 30 year old sci-fi isn't even fiction anymore.

PDK's ability to play multiple science fiction tropes off one another is what sets his novels apart from his contemporaries and what makes them so hard to adapt for film. His best novels combine several disparate ones simultaneously, which he typically explored singly in his short stories. Naturally that makes adaptation of the former harder than the latter. In the case of another go-round of adapting DADoES?, there's room for another one or two since Blade Runner was, frankly, pretty light on ideas by comparison.

Then again, the producers at Alcorn Entertainment don't sound as though they're pretty light on ideas by Hollywood standards.

Except ST:TOS's SFX were, let's be honest, cheap and awful. Scott's background in design ensured that even though he wasn't using cutting-edge technology, his science fiction films looked consistently superb. Alien and Blade Runner have dated visually far, far less than contemporary sci-fi flicks. Even George Lucas, who was always about pushing the edge of technology, felt he had to go back and improve things (not always to the fans' agreement). The minor tweaks for the Blade Runner director's cut were mainly to address production issues, like the bad stuntwork in Zhora's death scene.

I hate that. The "fiction" part of that isn't the weightier half of the phrase. If I just want stupid things that don't make sense, I'll watch Fantasy. Or Shoutwives of <fill in the city>.

As I said, in goofy sci-fi I have no problem with them making nonsense up, Blade Runner is intended to be taken seriously. If that's the case, then they need to cross their Ts, dot their Is and balance their equations. This is the same problem I had with Contact. That movie is just so relentlessly idiotic on the science aspect that it's just aggravating.

When I originally complained about this (back in 1983), a friend of my brother's who was crazy in love with this movie called it a hologram. Now that I watch the scene again, I renew my objection to it.

Deckard is using the word "enhance" but the computer *isn't* enhancing anything -- it is literally seeing around corners, pulling images out of its binary butt. It's a regular flat photo so there's no way it could see that woman, because it literally turns a corner. It's BS.

Oh god, it totally does. I keep telling people that show is science fiction and they always say, "Nuh-uh! That's all real!"

Even funnier is when that argument is used in court...

Oh god that makes me want to laugh and scream at the same time.

Holy pancaking shi-

What, they don't work that way?