Ridley Scott Wants Harrison Ford To Appear In BLADE RUNNER Sequel

Ridley Scott Wants Harrison Ford To Appear In BLADE RUNNER Sequel

The director, who is set to direct a sequel to his 1982 sci-fi classic Blade Runner, expresses his desire to see Harrison Ford have a role in the sequel (despite his character not being the focus of the story).



Recently, news broke that Hampton Fancher (who wrote the script for the original Blade Runner) will return to write another installment. It appears that he and director Riddley Scott have agreed that the movie should be a sequel, instead of a rumored prequel.

The director confirmed this info in a recent interview with The Independent. Fancher may not have begun writing a script yet, but it sounds like he and Scott know which direction the story should go. Scott also says that he would like Harrison Ford (who played Deckard in the first movie) to appear in the sequel, but he won't be the main focus. "I don't think it'll be Harrison [starring]. But I've got to have him in it somewhere. That'd be amusing," Scott said. Recently, Scott revealed that the protagonist of the new film will be a female.

Riddley Scott is currently promoting Prometheus, and he will begin shooting The Counselor this summer. He is expected to focus on the new Blade Runner movie afterwards (unless a Prometheus sequel is fast tracked). Stay tuned to CBM for more Blade Runner news.




Posted By:
Lucas Mendonça
Member Since 7/19/2010
Filed Under "Sci-Fi" 5/27/2012 Source: The Playlist
DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
24 Comments
Canon108 - 5/27/2012, 8:39 AM
I agree, beans are cool...
Canon108 - 5/27/2012, 8:40 AM
I really hope this new one captures the feel of the first...it's one of those films I could watch anytime.
Chaplin - 5/27/2012, 9:05 AM
Grif what is with the negativity man! Have you even seen Prometheus?! No, cause it isn't out yet. Do everyone a favor and stop trolling the site, go out and get a bloody life, mate!
Facade - 5/27/2012, 9:23 AM
The Harrison Ford of a decade or ago...sure...the old guy of today...forget it.
DukeAcureds - 5/27/2012, 9:24 AM
Oh Hell no. I mean, it'd be a cool curtain bow and all, but it would negate the ambiguity of the original.
No. Bad Ridley Scott. Bad.
DukeAcureds - 5/27/2012, 9:25 AM
Grif@ Prometheus? Dogshit. Nyuck, nyuck.
nld3 - 5/27/2012, 9:26 AM
I though Ridley said in an interview that he hinted that Deckard was a replicant? If so how would an older Deckard work? Repicants don't age. I never like the Deckard as replicant idea to begin with.
marvel72 - 5/27/2012, 9:38 AM
ford would be awesome but if he can't get ford to comeback maybe russell crowe.
AC1 - 5/27/2012, 9:40 AM
This won't work as a sequel. As a Prometheus style, in-universe but not directly related to the original, type of movie. Having Harrison Ford return might not be a good idea, since it'd give away whether or not Deckard was a replicant (if its an older Deckard then he's human, if he's not Deckard then it suggests he's a human template that the replicant Deckard was based on).
GUNSMITH - 5/27/2012, 9:50 AM
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A REPLICANT THAT DOESN'T KNOW HE'S A REPLICANT UNTIL MIDWAY THROUGH THEN HUNTING DOWN OTHER ROUGE REPLICANTS. THEN DECKARD CAMEO POPPING UP NOT AGED A DAY(DO THE TRON AGE REVERSION STUFF ON FORD). MAYBE YOU COULD GET COLIN FAREL,MATT DAMON OR MICHAEL FASSBENDER(HMM FASSBENDER WOULD BE COOL COMING OFF OF PROMETHEUS)..
CrispySeaplanes - 5/27/2012, 9:56 AM
Or maybe Deckard and rachel were prototype replicants that do age but don't have the built in four year lifespan. The memory implants were intended to make them more stable so the four year lifespan wasn't needed. Or Ford could be a scientist at Tyrell who helped design the Deckard replicant. I'm sure Ridley can figure out a way to maintain the ambiguity.
DukeAcureds - 5/27/2012, 10:32 AM
CrispySeaplanes@ Awesome handle. But about what you said, either way would destroy the ambiguity. Like ACira pointed out, if he's Dekkard, then Deckard's not a replicant. If he's not Deckard, then Deckard is a replicant.
Seejay - 5/27/2012, 10:44 AM

Nice!


some_text

some_text

some_text
rueda - 5/27/2012, 10:46 AM
DUDE, ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE RETURN OF...VANGELIS!!!!!!!
Timerider84 - 5/27/2012, 10:58 AM
Harrison would do it for Ridley, especially if he liked the script and if his part was somewhat small. Perhaps the old Harrison made Deckard and has to help somebody make another one toward the end of the movie and have young Harrison return close to the end via Tron Legacy technology. That would be really cool if you ask me.
gaikinger - 5/27/2012, 12:43 PM
watched this movie many times and never bought that Deckard was a replicant. Replicants dont age so this would be a nice batch of proof pudding.
INSTANTJUSTICE - 5/27/2012, 1:22 PM
Goomba, Blade Runner Director's cut was the version released theatrically in the 90's. The 'studio assembly cut' is called the WORKRINT, not the Director's Cut.


Scott claims Deckard's a replicant -not in script- and this seems to be his own final word on the matter though I think this is more of a retro-fit than the original intention- Scott tends to bullshit a lot these days about what he originally intended with this film. Deckard being a replicant tends to weaken the story so I don't feel he really is nor was ever intended to be. Scott says otherwise.
Ha1frican - 5/27/2012, 2:08 PM
I think it would be better if it was an entirely different story set in the same world that ran parallel to BR and then you can see a point where they intersect somewhere. If it is a sequel i do still want a cameo but just a quick appearance.
DukeAcureds - 5/27/2012, 5:03 PM
Woah. Never even noticed that. The Final Cut DOES get rid of the missing replicant. "Two got fried". Damn. I seen that cut a few times, as well, but I totally missed that line.
DukeAcureds - 5/27/2012, 5:04 PM
So what the hell was with the unicorn and, for that matter, what was with the matchstick man and the swan?!
CrispySeaplanes - 5/27/2012, 10:59 PM
Thanks Duke. I'm not sure though where it ever said Replicants don't age. They never seemed to age since they only lived four years. Replicants aren't androids they are artificial humans that seem to be living flesh made to be more human than human. Presumably if they live longer than four years then they would age as a human would.
CrispySeaplanes - 5/28/2012, 6:14 AM
I read the book. The movie is not exactly faithful to the source material and is a separate entity. All they need to be consistent with is what is presented in the original movie which did not necessarily present them as androids. If we're going to consider the book as canon then where was Deckard's wife in the movie?
JohnnyKrypton - 5/29/2012, 7:00 AM
@Goomba

Are you sure you're not confusing Scott's commentary track with Fancher's?

Scott has been pretty definitive and vocal about "his" Deckard being a replicant

Yes, he’s a replicant. He was always a replicant.”

JohnnyKrypton - 5/29/2012, 11:31 AM
@Goomba- yeah, you completely missed it. Scott is adamant that Deckard is a replicant, which was his whole reason for doing the Final Cut.

In Scott's own words..."That's the whole point of Gaff, the guy who makes origami and leaves little matchstick figures around. He doesn't like Deckard and we really don't know why. If you take for granted for a moment that Dekard is, let's say, a Nexus 7, he therefore has an unknown lifespan and was starting to become awfully human. Gaff, at the very end, leaves an origami, which is a piece of silver paper you might find in a cigarette packet, and that's Gaff's message to say 'I've read your file, mate.' That relates to Deckards speech to Rachael when he says, 'Those aren't your memories, They're Tyrell's niece's memories'. He describes a little spider on a bush outside her window. The spider is an implanted piece of memory from someone else. And therefore Deckard, too, has memories."

The examples you cite that "confuse" people apparently confused you, lol. You got them backwards:

"There were some other subtle hints thrown in by Scott, too, such as Deckard's high threshold of pain. (He gets beaten up by Leon and doesn't have any bruises later when we see him shirtless. Also, he gets his fingers broken by Roy but he's still able to leap to the next roof and pull himself up by hand.)"



In reference to the unicorn, Scott says..."How could someone have known what's inside his head other than someone who has looked at his file and knew what had been implanted in his brain. I can't be any clearer that that! If you don't get that, you have to be a moron!"

http://robwrite.hubpages.com/hub/The-Battle-Behind-Bladerunner-Harrison-Ford-vs-Ridley-Scott

Well, that's preety definitive, no?

In any case, imo Ford (and Fancher, Hauer, and Dick, and WB, etc) was right; turning Deckard into a replicant undermines the entire story. This was a MAJOR issue between Ford and Scott featuring some underhanded actions by Scott and led to years of bad feelings and Ford consistentlty referring to BR as the worst movie experience of his life. While the ice has thawed in recent years, it may be wishful thinking on Scott's part if he plans to revisit the same issue

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.