QUOTE (Raven @ Aug 20 2011, 01:22 PM)
Aliens and Terminator 2 are very much exceptions to the rule that sequels aren't as good as the original, and both series also went on to produce other films that were below par (it's also telling that you cited The Last Crusade rather than The Temple of Doom, by the way).
Ignoring book or comic book adaptations, which have set stories or mythologies to follow, it is very rare indeed for an original film to spawn a better sequel (okay, so Blade Runner isn't exactly an original film, but it's not a straight adaptation either).
For every Aliens you have to sit through a Matrix Reloaded; for every Terminator 2 you have a Ghostbusters 2 (admittedly, most sequels aren't that bad, but they are rarely better than the films that spawned them).
The recent trend in Hollywood for resurrecting old films to turn into new franchise has resulted in some pretty poor efforts (Tron 2 and Clash of the Titans, for example), because the films in question weren't self-contained stories in their own right, but set up for what was intended to follow.
Some films can stand on their own. They don't need to have a sequel to explain how the characters are doing now, or a prequel to explain how the world came to be the way it was in the original. Not every film needs to spawn a franchise and I really don't want to see a version of Blade Runner that is all pumping toons and blurred CGI action (I'm not saying that's the way it will be, but given recent "reimaginings" it's not something that can be ruled out).
The point I was making wasn't that most sequels are poor but some are good, it was that very few movies 'need' sequels. Terminator, Alien, Raiders etc are all solid stand-alone movies in their own right, none of which required sequels - but a sequel was made, and it was good. Blade Runner similarly doesn't need a sequel, but that doesn't mean that if a sequel were made it would be bad. That's the point I was trying to make.
The Kurt Russel movie Soldier
is set in the same world as Blade Runner
, but has nothing whatsoever to do with Blade Runner (though I've not actually seen it, so I can't attest to the quality of the movie - though that's not what I'm getting at). It's not even set on Earth. Prometheus has nothing to do with Alien at all, only that it exists in that same universe - and what's wrong with that? Die Hard and Jurassic Park could exist in the same universe. All Prometheus will do is reference a couple of things, like maybe having the milk-blooded androids in, or the Wayland-Yutani Corporation. It's not like it'll have Ripley's grandmother in, or even the Alien itself. The two movies simply exist in the same version of the future, that's all. We know there's a lot more to that future than just finding the Xenomorph. The Marines in Aliens are very much used to fighting alien species and going to alien planets, and indeed mention other sentient and intelligent races. Prometheus could slip easily into that, just telling a story about one of those other races. The story, characters, events, locations and everything else has absolutely nothing to do with Alien. The only common thread is that they're both set in the same future of humanity. It doesn't matter to either film that they're related; they just are. All the Quentin Tarantino movies exist in the same universe, but that doesn't make Pulp Fiction a sequel to Reservoir Dogs. There are little bits here and there, odd lines and placement of things, that link the movies into the same universe. That's all Prometheus will be, and to dismiss it and hope it fails so badly it takes Scott's future projects away from him makes no sense to me.
Blade Runner's new movie will be much the same, though closer to the original movie. Just because Blade Runner's story ended doesn't mean another movie set in the near future about Replicants can't exist. The two will have nothing to do with each-other.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, it may well be a terrible idea. I just don't think it's so bad on principle as to condemn it from one line of text in a news report. It's not like news that The Thing is being remade (again) or something - a bad idea it may be, but it also has the potential to be a great film, if Scott takes it in the right direction.