When in doubt, go bigger, bolder, and more spectacular
A bugbear of ours in general when it comes to sequels, this tendency also exists among some good ones, so it’s not without possibilities. Both “Aliens” and “Terminator 2” qualify, of course, but there’s also “X2: X-Men United,” which gave bigger spectacle than the first “X-Men” movie, but, while overstuffed, still managed to satisfy on a character level (mostly.) “Mad Max 2” is a good example, in which George Miller basically reset “Mad Max,” but kept the plot and dialogue superlatively lean, the better to stage the action and the many chase scenes for even more breathtaking impact. Of course these are the exceptions — “Robocop 2” is undoubtedly brasher and more violent than its predecessor, but Lord, does it become tedious, while every sequel that Michael Bay has made to his clunking “Transformers” series proves that doubling the mayhem is more likely to lead to a halving of engagement.
Could/should “Blade Runner 2” do the same? Again, it feels unlikely that Villeneuve’s interests will suddenly switch to making shit blow up, and it would undoubtedly be a major betrayal of the brainy, downbeat vibe of the original to flatten the grays of the “Blade Runner” world into moral blacks and whites, which is what this sort of approach tends to require.
Introduce young blood, possibly a child.
While we cringe at the Screenwriting 101 feel of this idea, it has worked on a few occasions, as a means of upping the stakes for the hero. Again, “Terminator 2” added young John Connor and fits the bill here, with the quasi-messiah cleverly pitched at an age not very far from that of the bullseye target market. “Aliens” brought in Newt to humanize Ripley, and thanks to some clever scripting that makes her a character and not just a narrative device, it worked very well. “X2” had an inexhaustible supply of kids by being set largely in Xavier’s school. And “Mad Max 2” brought in the boomerang-wielding Feral Child character, following the murder of Max’s infant son in the first film, creating a pivotal figure for both the plot and for Max’s taciturn psychology.
Could/should “Blade Runner 2” do the same? Oh God, we hope not. The film is going to have to introduce a younger lead, as we know from Scott that Ford is not the anchor of the first two acts, but we trust Villeneuve enough to believe he won’t go the “Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull” route of casting a teenager. And if the lead is going to be a new character, presumably be in their 20s or 30s (make it Jake Gyllenhaal, and I’ll be interested…), it may well preclude introducing a younger kid into the mix as well.
Get newer, better, more conflicted, more rounded villains
The few sci-fi sequels that are regarded as an improvement on their originals in general boast a better villain than the first time out — take Khan in “Star Trek II,” or T-1000 in “T2.” This is especially true when we go into the is-it-strictly-sci-fi-or-not territory of the superhero film: “The Dark Knight” brought in the scorchingly anarchist Joker; “Spider-man 2” had the evil-yet-tragic Doc Ock; “Superman II” gave us vengeful, superpowered escapee General Zod & co.
Could/should “Blade Runner 2” do the same? It’s difficult to apply comic book character/superhero logic to “Blade Runner,” but then again, “The Dark Knight” universe is maybe the closest anyone’s come tonally to replicating the rain-slicked dystopian cityscapes of Scott’s film. With Tyrell dead and Roy Batty gone like tears in the rain, the original film’s antagonists are pretty much done (unless, again, Tyrell was a clone), so new bad guys are going to have to materialize or Edward James Olmos’ Gaff is going to be doing a lot of heavy lifting. As to how they’ll stack up against the original, though? It’s awfully hard to see how anyone could better the moral ambivalence, iron physicality, and steel-trap mind evoked by Rutger Hauer.
But perhaps the biggest issue with villainy in “Blade Runner 2” is one that actually cuts to the heart of why I, personally, just can’t get with the idea of the sequel at all, despite my admiration for Villeneuve and the kind of undying love for the original film that means I’d love to revisit that universe for a little while, whatever the reason. The thing that makes “Blade Runner” maybe my favorite science fiction film ever is that it is just as much film noir. And in noir there are bad guys and good guys (and the good guys usually behave a lot like the bad guys for a lot of the time), but the real antagonist is fate.
Dumb luck, fatal destiny, doom — whatever you want to call it, it pervades every frame of “Blade Runner” as surely as it does “Chinatown” or “Double Indemnity” or “Kiss Me Deadly.” Noir films simply do not lend themselves to sequelization (“The Two Jakes“), because when they work they end on a knife-edge note of irony and conflicting emotion that only a cut to black can preserve. The ending of “Blade Runner” (the proper one, not the daft theatrical cut version) manages just that trick: Deckard wins the day, and gets to leave with Rachael, but all of that is tainted with panic, at the nearness of their escape, at the knowledge of her limited lifespan, and finally, with knowing that Gaff has let them both live, for motives that are less than comfortable for Deckard to contemplate. For what is technically a happy ending, the finale is soaked in romantic, ironic, noirish doom, and just as I fear concrete proof either way of Deckard’s humanity, I fear knowing whether happiness or despair overtakes them when they leave that elevator. Was ever there a question so meant to have remained rhetorical and unanswered as, “It’s too bad she won’t live, but then again, who does?”
Tell us your thoughts in the comments below, especially if you can see a way that the “Untitled Blade Runner Sequel” might live up to its forbear: I would honestly love to believe.