"Blade Runner's" Deckard (Harrison Ford), hunting for six replicants in a city of 106 million.
Come in out of the acid rain, I've got troubling news.
Ridley Scott is planning to return to the futuristic world of "Blade Runner," his iconic 1982 film, which for me set the bar for what all films dealing with the future should look like. Yes, living in this world, today, I fully anticipate a future world that will be bleak, dark and rainy -- and possibly inhabited by fake humans (no comment.)
I just came across "Blade Runner" (not the director's cut) the other night on cable and found it still meets the requirement to be considered a favorite film: no matter how many times you've seen it, or how far along it is, you'll sit and watch what's left -- even with commercials and even with a DVD copy 6 feet away.
We see plenty of stories out of Hollywood these days about plans to remake or reimagine classic films. Just last week, readers were fired up about news of a new "Dirty Dancing" film and who could possibly replace Patrick Swayze. "Hollywood has no original ideas!" you always shout, across the Internet. And "Dirty Dancing" didn't even have Harrison Ford!
This "Blade Runner" project is described as a "follow up" to the first film and The Hollywood Reporter says, "filmmakers have not yet disclosed whether it will function as a prequel or a sequel to the original." That doesn't appease some diehard skeptics. "I'll only watch it if it's in 3-D, and they get Shia LaBeouf," one sarcastic commenter said on a co-worker's Facebook post about the plans.
I can't imagine plans for any remake these days that wouldn't be met with some level of disdain by the 3-D-weary public. Maybe I'm just depressed by the fact that a film I loved so much in my youth is already ripe for revisiting. The future ... it came so fast.
And all those moments will be lost in time, like ... tears ... in rain.