Ridley Scott reveals plot details for Prometheus and Blade Runner sequels

And he confirms that Deckard was a replicant

Ridley Scott looks set to continue dabbling in the science-fiction universe, revealing loose plot details for sequels to both Prometheusand Blade Runner.And while doing so, he glibly confirms the long-debated theory that Rick Deckard IS indeed a replicant.

He starts with Prometheus 2, which is set to pick up where the first film left off, with Dr. Elizabeth Shaw setting off in search of the Engineers, accompanied by the severed head of David the android.

“Prometheus evolved into a whole other universe,” says Scott. “You've got [Elizabeth Shaw] with the head in a bag that functions and has an IQ of 350. It can explain to her how to put the head back on the body and she's gonna think about that long and hard because, once the head is back on his body, he's dangerous. They're going off to paradise but it could be the most savage, horrible place. Who are the Engineers?”

Who indeed? More questions than answers there then, but we’d expect nothing else from Sir Ridley, who also goes on to drop a couple of tidbits about the sequel to Blade Runner.

“It is happening,” confirms the director. “With Harrison Ford? I don't know yet. Is he too old? Well, he was a Nexus-6 so we don't know how long he can live.”

So there you have it; that's that debate put to rest.

Which of the above are you more excited for? Tell us, below!

Comments

    • JoshEBevans

      Oct 12th 2012, 8:46

      Who gives a s**t??? He had the chance to tell us who the Engineers were first time around. Now we're supposed to pay to see another 2 hours of awfully written, totally incoherent b******t in the hope that he might reveal SOMETHING by the end! Don't think so! In fact, I'd bet £100 right now that this sequel will end with them STILL trying to find Paradise! Any takers?

      Alert a moderator

    • marc96

      Oct 12th 2012, 9:50

      cant wait, i enjoyed prometheus and will be paying to see the next one

      Alert a moderator

    • pjhutch77

      Oct 12th 2012, 9:51

      I really must agree with Josh. I, like so many others was very disappointed with Prometheus, but sadly as I am a mug I'll probably go and see any sequels that are released. As for Blade Runner 2, why? Oh yeah, more money and a chance to perhaps ruin a classic in the same way Prometheus ruined the Alien series (special mention to AvP:Requiem for that too).

      Alert a moderator

    • DarrenBr00ks

      Oct 12th 2012, 10:02

      Thanks very much total film for the obvious spoilers! I've yet to see this film (Don't ask) and now know far too much having read the this story. Frustated to say the least.

      Alert a moderator

    • DarrenBr00ks

      Oct 12th 2012, 10:04

      Obviously ignore the superfluous "the" I'm not stupid i just can't type.

      Alert a moderator

    • LongDown

      Oct 12th 2012, 10:11

      @JoshEBevans- Don't worry, Damon Lindlehoff isn't involved with Prometheus 2. . . . . . . . . @TotalFilm- Ridley Scott confirmed Deckard was a replicant years ago, in a documentary about Blade Runner. The clue is that the Edward James Olmos character knew what Deckard's dreams were (unicorns) and so leaves him an origami unicorn on his doorstep.

      Alert a moderator

    • badger86

      Oct 12th 2012, 10:25

      @DarrenBr00ks The film came out almost 5 months ago, it's available on Blu Ray, which pretty much means the statute of limitations is up when it comes to spoilers. You can't hold it against Total Film, you must be one of the only people who wanted to see the film but hasn't, that's your problem. Not to mention the headline 'Ridley Scott reveals plot details for Prometheus and Blade Runner sequels' use your brain, if he is going to reveal details about the sequel then any reasonable peroson would assume that details of the first movie will also be discussed! Prometheus was just about ok imo, i would be interested to see where a sequel would go, and hopefully they can make it better. As far as motivations for making it and a BR sequel go of course money is part of it, for the studio at least, i don't see why people b***h about that, it's called show BUSINESS after all. I don't think the economics of it matter to much to Ridley Scott though. What i see is not a man trying to increase his wealth, but a director who can't have that many years left in him, wishing to re visit worlds he created decades ago with a new perspective on life and film making. There's nothing wrong with that, and he has every right to do it, they are his worlds. If we don't like what he ends up doing then fair enough, we still have the originals.

      Alert a moderator

    • SiMan

      Oct 12th 2012, 11:08

      I still don't get why Shaw would want to track down the Engineers. The first one she met went Ape-Sh*t and tried to kill her. Personally I'd leave the 8ft tall, murdering mountains of muscle alone.

      Alert a moderator

    • MoodyMonkey

      Oct 12th 2012, 11:29

      i mostly enjoyed it but as much as i looked forward to it (more than even Avengers or TDKR), I didn't go in expecting another Alien or as the hype seemed to suggest, 2001. it certainly wasn't the Phantom Menace/Batman & Robin type abomination some have painted it to be though... in a hundred years from now, whos gonna care?

      Alert a moderator

    • Jareth64

      Oct 12th 2012, 11:36

      Messing around with these legendary films is not a good idea, as has been proven with the awful Prometheus. Alien is a masterpiece, as is Blade Runner. Aliens is also an out-and-out classic. We can only expect disappointment from these endeavours; does Scott seriously think he can refind his form from three decades ago? There's no need to add to Blade Runner. At all. Stop this nonsense.

      Alert a moderator

    • spid2411

      Oct 12th 2012, 11:41

      I agree SiMan - why go to a planet of beings who will tear your head off the minute they set eyes on you? Actually, now I think about it they should make that movie. At the start she lands on the planet and is immediately killed so the film is only 10 minutes long (by which time the initial awe of the cool 3D has already faded) which means we don't have to sit through another 2 hours of incoherent dogs**t like the first one. Ridley, please, please leave it all alone. Blade Runner is a classic - don't' start doing a Lucas and making CGI prequels or sequels to films just because they will make money. If you really want back into sci-fi why not try and make something original? Maybe that is the problem - trying to force scripts to tie in with existing films when those films said what they had to say and need no further explanation. Or is it just the tedious little suits at the studio dictating all this as they want to cash in on people who loved the originals so they can buy another pretty car from the profits??

      Alert a moderator

    • FBJBottomley

      Oct 12th 2012, 12:21

      Will People stop calling Prometheus an Alien film! It isn't, it is its own area of Sci-Fi merely linked with Alien. Nobody should have expected Alien 5.

      Alert a moderator

    • Ichi1

      Oct 12th 2012, 14:07

      @pjhutch77 I have seen Alien and Aliens since seeing Prometheus, and both movies are in fact the same exact movies they were before Prometheus was even conceived. So in no way did Prometheus "ruin" the series. Quit being such a drama queen. Also, all you whining emo twits.....skip these movies if they offend you so much. People who suffer things they are in no way obligated to suffer through, should do so in silience.

      Alert a moderator

    • NickyC

      Oct 12th 2012, 14:26

      Re: "Will People stop calling Prometheus an Alien film!" Er, actually it WAS an Alien movie until the studio dictated that it should be augmented in order to start a brand new franchise. Scott has already said all this ...That's why Lindelof was brought in. He didn't ruin it through lack of ability, what actually happened was that he wrote in the changes that were ordered by the studio. So, people were expecting Alien 5 because the script WAS originally a prequel to the 1979 story. And the reason why the script is such a mongrel is because the studio left it too late to change their mind. In order to change the story that much they needed to start from scratch and rebuild the whole structure. But they didn't. They paid Lindelof to take an existing script and change scenes until it was 'different enough' for their tastes. That's not the way to write a movie (and is probably why some scenes were created/improvised on set ... such as Shaw's emotional breakdown near the end), but then since when did most studio execs know anything about the discipline of screenwriting?

      Alert a moderator

    • Igrayne

      Oct 12th 2012, 15:38

      There are alot more clues than just the unicorn, why can Deckard take so much pain and killing with almost no remorse, Rachel actually puts the question to him "have you taken the test?". Also there is nothing about any family or history of Deckard's. If you want to stretch it maybe Roy knows him? Or knows he is a Nexus and that is why he sympathises with Deckard at the

      Alert a moderator

    • alexr

      Oct 12th 2012, 15:52

      To be fair, Prometheus was not THAT bad. I enjoyed it immensely, but I felt there WAS a huge Alien elephant in the room. I think they needed to be more subtle with the ties to Alien, or show a definitive link between the 'chestburster' and 'worm' in Prometheus and the Xenomorph and facehuggers from the originals. The timeline established in Prometheus (and the idea that this lifeform is just now evolving into the traditional Xenomorph strain) just doesn't seem to fit in with the crashed ship full of eggs from LV426, which would have been laid by a traditional alien Queen. That is, unless humans have already been used to develop the traditional alien strain and the ship full of eggs is basically a weapons cache that was en route somewhere else... Which would explain the 'alien' carving seen on the walls during Prometheus.. I wonder if Ridley Scott has had to force himself not to include some subte link between Prometheus and Blade Runner - such as someone describing David as a significant improvement on the 'old Tyrell Nexus-6 models'.

      Alert a moderator

    • Ali1748

      Oct 12th 2012, 16:06

      Has George Lucas infected Ridley ?

      Alert a moderator

    • DarrenBr00ks

      Oct 12th 2012, 16:27

      @Badger86. Oh that's okay them. It slipped my mind that there is a time limitation on spoilers.

      Alert a moderator

    • jem0013

      Oct 12th 2012, 17:53

      Deckard is NOT a replicant!

      Alert a moderator

    • spoonlamp

      Oct 12th 2012, 18:28

      @jem0013 TROLL Longdown (6th poster) quotes for truth. Deckard is a replicant. As for the rest of this, I'll watch Prometheus. As much as the story was disappointing I still enjoyed it. Being drunk might have helped, but repeating that won't annoy me too much...

      Alert a moderator

    • pingpong

      Oct 12th 2012, 22:34

      So Ridley is really willing to pull a George Lucas and ruin the legacy of two great sci-fi movies. sweet

      Alert a moderator

    • Hadouken76

      Oct 13th 2012, 8:07

      Should have given the film to Tony Scott.

      Alert a moderator

    • Hadouken76

      Oct 13th 2012, 9:10

      Why does that picture remind me of a naked Natasha HEnstridge in Speicies?

      Alert a moderator

    • Ali1748

      Oct 13th 2012, 11:35

      Tony Scott's Prometheus would be insane.

      Alert a moderator

    • 2Dglasses

      Oct 13th 2012, 11:59

      Prometheus ON ITS OWN is not a dreadful film. Looked great, acting not bad, some plot points and up its own hole-ness but watchable, dont get me wrong. But heres the thing...how did they get it to be so much worse in its execution than a film 30 years before it? And now the talk of BR2...people are worrying that in fact those 2 films were the fluke, and the stuff since has been Ridleys 'true', and often disappointing output. Leave it Ridley, your own tinkering with BR1 surely is a hint that it should be left alone. if you absolutely have to go there again..do it 50 years later, 'Deckard: Legacy' if you want.

      Alert a moderator

    • jem0013

      Oct 14th 2012, 17:49

      Deckard is NOT a replicant - It is said in the film by Bryant that Deckard had been working for the police for years. So, if he is a replicant then he would be an older version and since memory implants are a new addition peculiar only to Rachael then how would Deckard have the same function? The unicorn cannot be a memory implant. The unicorn is something he had read in Rachaels records and is in fact a memory donated by Tyrells niece. Deckard thinks of this incongruous symbol and relates it to Rachael as a symbol of purity and his love for her, Gaff would also recognise this and thus taunts him as he did with the other origami statues. The chicken as Deckard won't take on the job in the initial stage of the film and the matchstick man with an erection when Deckard finally get's excited by the chase. The glowing eyes argument: why use the VK test when you can just shine a torch in the face of a replicant and see the orange glow? Ever taken a photograph and noticed a bit of 'red eye'? The poetic ending to Batty's life: The one thing that Roy wanted was to feel human after all the questionable things he had done. What is more humane than saving another human's life? For a fleeting moment when he saves Deckard he has a 'kinship' with Deckard and becomes more human than human. Still not seen Prometheus yet though....

      Alert a moderator

    • alexr

      Oct 15th 2012, 9:38

      @jem0013 After all this time, I still want to believe that Deckard IS a replicant. And as for the Bryant and Gaff arguments - perhaps the old saying "Send a killer to catch a killer" is more apt that we realise, and the entire Blade Runner unit is made up of replicants with memory implants. Therefore, Deckard and Bryant may not have known each other for years, but could have the memories of those years implanted. The glowing eyes could just be a faux pas by the DP, who thought the effect (and the shot) looked stylish, and was supposed to be an effect that made audiences feel the replicant actors were 'less human'. It may then stand to reason that this was for the audience only and in the continuity of the Blade Runner universe, this eye glow does not exist? Just a thought. I love the idea that Batty wanted to feel more human (and humane) by saving a human's (Deckard) life. But could Batty have been fooled into thinking Deckard was human, in the same way that Rachel and Deckard (for arguments sake) themselves think they are human? Are replicants able to identify each other by sight? I am not so sure... And Prometheus is worth watching at least once...

      Alert a moderator

    • jem0013

      Oct 16th 2012, 5:07

      @alexr - Because there is so much mythology surrounding the Bladerunner universe there will always be the is he or isn't he a replicant debate and that is one of many reasons why this film is a bona fide classic and will never be 'replicated'. I look forwards to a sequel but it will never touch the original. I will always think of Deckard as a human because it adds so much poetry to the overall story. It's all about what makes us human and I feel that Deckard is in some ways less a man than Batty as he seems to live a very apathetic life yet Batty has really lived and experienced many things that Deckard hasn't; that doesn't necessarily make anybody more human but it does give more substance to how a person feels. Making Deckard a replicant for me is just a bit of a cop out because his story, side by side to Roy Batty's, is so much more than Scott gives him. I sincerley hope that the sequel doesn't include Deckard his story has been told and it doesn't need re-treading - it will seriously damage the mythology. But I do like your arguments!

      Alert a moderator

    • stanislavstanev

      Oct 16th 2012, 11:18

      Blade Runner-ok,Ford returning- more than ok. But Prometeus...what simple-minded,albeit effects-laden,pale ,dumb,illogical,horse s**t was that..Ridley failed BIG TIME,on that one. :(

      Alert a moderator

Most Popular