I have to agree Blade runner doesn't need a sequel. it is perfectly good self contained storry on its own.
Ifthey do anage to make a good film put of continuing it, great, tho. But the fact is that experience with 'sequels' such as this has been generaly negative and I fully understand people being warry of it.

You can say 'it's dogmatic' and you should try it before you judge it' but here's the problem, at least in the first couple of monthes:
To see the movie,Ii need to paya the ticket. And even if it happens to disike it, even if a mjority of people who saw it dislike it, they alrady payed, th profit is made. and a enough opening week, even based on curiosity alone will send the message that yes, this is what the kind of movie people wants, or at least what's profitable.
As such, yes it is reasonable not to want to see a movie at all if you feel it'll be bad r t least wait untill first opiions and critics rolls in

(I also fully agree that Aliens (or alien 2 ) if you will was was compellety off comapred to the first movie spirirt by turning a goood horor film into an action, bleh.
But hey if you enjoy it, tht's greayt, no accounting for taste.)

Fun fact: Lord of the Rings is a sequel to The Hobbit
It started that way but clearly sprawled ito something much more that was very much it's own thing.
ou can read Lord of the rig without having read the Hobbit andit perfectly stnd on it's own given how little recuring elements there are.