Ridley Scott says there may be a small role for actor in planned sequel . . .

Blade Runner stillEarlier this year it was rumored that Harrison Ford was in discussions to appear in the planned sequel to the 1982 classic Blade Runner.

Now director Ridley Scott, who will be directing the sequel as well, has revealed in an interview that:

“I don’t think it’ll be Harry [starring],” he said. “But I’ve got to have him in it somewhere. That’d be amusing.”

In the meantime it has emerged that the planned project will indeed be a sequel and not a prequel or remake. It will also feature a female protagonist.

If the 69-year-old star does make an appearance in the project as Deckard (the role he originally played) it would mean that the character wasn’t a replicant as many speculated since replicants only have a limited lifespan.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Category: Movies, News

About the Author

James has been running The Sci-Fi Movie Page since Before the Beginning of Time Itself (TM), i.e. since the site's inception in 1997. In addition to sci-fi James also likes 1970s motorbikes and chili dogs although he doesn't own the former and no longer eats the latter. He currently resides in Kiev, Ukraine for reasons best left unexplained.

  • PAZ

    It is also said that the new type of replicants don´t have this limited life spawn… Rachael i.e.

  • Scifimoviepage

    Depends on which version of the movie you watch. In the original theatrical version there is talk of Rachel not having a limited lifespan during the movie’s “happy ending”. In the later “director’s cut” nothing of the sort is implied and the movie ends with Gaff’s famous line of “It’s too bad she won’t live! But then again, who does?”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003152299229 Oquc Vmn Xkz

    Rachel did not have a limited life span

  • Anonymous

    Was I imagining things or was there not a twist to the story in which the female replicant didn’t have a replicant’s usual short lifespan? And I also thought the implication was that Deckard might be a replicant with a similar gift. The whole idea that Deckard might be a replicant was dumb. That is, The way it was tossed out there and not developed sucked. It just did. It wasn’t interesting.

    Blade Runner was awesome of course. Prometheus was a disaster. I have no confidence in Scott. I don’t know what happens to these geniuses. Lucas ruined the Vader character in his prequels, which, otherwise, were great eye candy, which I like. Jackson went too far with King Kong, after his success with the awesome (but not perfect) Lord Of The Rings. Why, why, why?!

  • Observant

    I actually think Prometheus was a great film, he did state that when he shot the original Alien film he did not intend on the following films to focus on the zenomorphs as the franchise ended up doing. Kudos to Scott for “taking back” his original ideals for the story he started. As for the comparisons with what Lucas took the liberties in doing with his star wars prequels, there isn’t a comparison, two totally different things.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=27605008 Seraphina Ramlal

    Minus all the plot holes



May 2017
« Oct