I get that we only saw one part of one city of BR1's world (unless you count the last scene of the Theatrical Cut; yet I'm assuming BR2 is a sequel to the Final Cut). But I dunno... when I looked at those EWeekly stills, and then watched this new teaser, BR2 looks more like BR1's past than its future.
Interesting trailer. It's still tough for me to take in, as BR1 is my favorite film, and I never wanted a sequel to it, and I only recently considered that a sequel might be not detract from the original. But it certainly does look... well shot, at least?. All we can do is hope for the best in October, right? (Or a couple weeks before then, when preview critiques anxious to tell us how we must feel about the film screech out their thoughts.)
That scene where Gosling confronts Ford - in a Korean temple? - makes it seem like this story might be Silence-of-the-Lambs-y... with a young genius on a difficult case needing to get guidance from an older, darker genius. But then in a later scene, when pretty brunette tells Gosling "you're special," it evokes lines from the original film (well mostly the Theatrical Cut, but still relevant if Deckard is a Tyrell-manufactured replicant capable of living past four years) which just might suggest that the Gosling character is also a replicant blade runner. Hmm. I'm probably wrong on both counts. lol
Also looks like Jared Leto's character is that generation's Tyrell?... and we see characters which kind of resemble a Leon and a Pris, maybe even a Rachel too.
NOW I'm worried that maybe I don't like the original Star Wars trilogy quite as much as I did before those prequels came out. Maybe poor follow-ups can indeed sully our feelings for the beloved original material.
It might be a fine movie, but there’s no reason to have Phillip K. Dick’s name on it as far as I can see from the trailer. It doesn’t appear to have much to do with the themes he wrote about.
It might be a fine movie, but there’s no reason to have Phillip K. Dick’s name on it as far as I can see from the trailer. It doesn’t appear to have much to do with the themes he wrote about.
It looks like there's cool, heroic action, as opposed to the ugly, desperate, ethically-questionable action of the original.
It looks like there's cool, heroic action, as opposed to the ugly, desperate, ethically-questionable action of the original.
Ethics was one of the themes Dick was exploring in the book, and was an essential part of what made the story resonate. Maybe it's because I read the book a couple of years before seeing Blade Runner, but for me Blade Runner without the underlying core of exploring human nature, and what makes us human, is just another visually stunning action movie—a good movie, but not necessarily one that stands the test of time. And like I said earlier in this thread, the book—and by extension the movie, though to a lesser extent—already said what Dick wanted to say, and raised the questions Dick wanted his readers to think about. Dick wasn’t writing a sci-fi action novel—that was just the vehicle for the real story. The flying cars, the androids, the noir elements, the action scenes, the romance elements were all simply trappings that kept things interesting for the reader. So, for me, 2049 can match the look of BR, the noir tone of BR, the environmental feel of BR, etc., perfectly, but unless it also explores humanity in a thoughtful, provocative way as Dick did in the book, the movie will still be a failure.
It's rarely a good idea to judge a film based on a few minutes of footage (though Ghostbusters 2016 may have been an exception), but from what I can tell BR2049 is more of a careful extension of Ridley Scott’s vision than furthering P.K. Dick's original story. I'm not sure the director will be able to tell a story as thoughtful and provocatively as PKD could. Instead, I expect this film to dive much deeper into themes of memories and empathy, the mythology of replicants, their history, how they function in 2049, their mass production, their use for human privilege, and so on. But on the bright side, the screenwriter for BR2049, Hampton Fancher, also wrote the screenplay for Blade Runner and was also the person responsible for convincing PKD to option 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' in the first place.
If this film is going to be entertaining or interesting, the director Denis Villeneuve will need to find his own identity and territory, and at the same time still be faithful and linked to the original Blade Runner without being insulting or shallow. It's going to be quite the challenge and I hope he's up to the task.
I do find it interesting how one of the fundamental points of Blade Runner was to make us question how much we value what’s “original” or “real” over expertly produced copies (and by extension, updates and continuations) which seems analogous to this discussion on BR2049.
I don’t disagree with any of that. Trying to further Dick’s story would be pointless, as the story said everything it needed to say. The other stuff I'm not nearly as interested in. If they want to tell a story about androids/replicants/robots, and how they function, and their place in human society, I’d rather they go make a good adaptation of Isaac Asimov’s work, or come up with something original.
I don’t think BR's as much about how much we value what is real over what is artificial, than it is what aspects of the real make it more valuable to us than the artificial, and why. In the novel, Dick was expressing his feeling that as technology was becoming more and more developed and integrated into our society, humanity was becoming less “human” (and this was in 1968!). But your point remains valid, and it does have a nice symmetry to it.
Perhaps if BR2049 is a flop then this discussion may be a moot point. Then again, Blade Runner had a $28 million budget and it only pulled in $34 million at the box office (including re-releases), It was a bomb, and yet it's still one of my favorite films, so maybe a flop won't be a bad indicator of it's quality.
I'm certain that the studio execs would disagree. Besides Blade Runner, I wonder how many films did as poorly at the box office and with critics that still got a big budget sequel years later? Does the Wizard of Oz count?
While I am probably more interested in seeing this than you, I agree with your desire for a GOOD Asimov adaptation over this. Perhaps one day Harlan Ellis's screenplay for I, Robot will be adapted.
I would say no on Wizard of Oz. While it did lose money on its initial release, it received a lot of critical praise, not to mention a Best Picture Academy Award nomination. And no big budget film based on the books happened until long after Wizard of Oz had become a beloved (and profitable) institution.
As for Ellison’s I, Robot script, we can only hope. But I'm not holding my breath.
It might be a fine movie, but there’s no reason to have Phillip K. Dick’s name on it as far as I can see from the trailer. It doesn’t appear to have much to do with the themes he wrote about.
So, much like the original :)
I don't think that lower-middle class, white collar melancholy that pervades Dick's work ever really makes it to the screen, even in the better received adaptations.
It might be a fine movie, but there’s no reason to have Phillip K. Dick’s name on it as far as I can see from the trailer. It doesn’t appear to have much to do with the themes he wrote about.
So, much like the original :)
I don't think that lower-middle class, white collar melancholy that pervades Dick's work ever really makes it to the screen, even in the better received adaptations.
Ha! Yeah, the film does depart quite a bit from the novel in many ways. But I don't really care if Dick's tone and style and perspective—his voice—make it to the screen or not. That's more a reflection of the language he uses and where he’s coming from as a person, which is difficult to translate to another medium. Honestly, I don’t expect, or even want, a note-for-note adaptation of any story when being translated from one medium to another. Each medium has its own set of strengths and weaknesses, and those should be used to make the story as effective in that medium as possible.
As long as the essence of what the creator is trying to accomplish with the story is there in the adaptation, I'm pretty flexible with how the story is handled. And, yeah, BR tends to spend more energy on the surface elements of the book than on the core themes, but I think in the end the essence of the novel is there on the screen.
It might be a fine movie, but there’s no reason to have Phillip K. Dick’s name on it as far as I can see from the trailer. It doesn’t appear to have much to do with the themes he wrote about.
So, much like the original :)
I don't think that lower-middle class, white collar melancholy that pervades Dick's work ever really makes it to the screen, even in the better received adaptations.
Ha! Yeah, the film does depart quite a bit from the novel in many ways. But I don't really care if Dick's tone and style and perspective—his voice—make it to the screen or not. That's more a reflection of the language he uses and where he’s coming from as a person, which is difficult to translate to another medium. Honestly, I don’t expect, or even want, a note-for-note adaptation of any story when being translated from one medium to another. Each medium has its own set of strengths and weaknesses, and those should be used to make the story as effective in that medium as possible.
As long as the essence of what the creator is trying to accomplish with the story is there in the adaptation, I'm pretty flexible with how the story is handled. And, yeah, BR tends to spend more energy on the surface elements of the book than on the core themes, but I think in the end the essence of the novel is there on the screen.
FWIW, PKD was very pleased with what he got to see of Scott's Blade Runner when it was still in production.
FWIW, PKD was very pleased with what he got to see of Scott's Blade Runner when it was still in production.
Yeah, I read an interview with him, the last interview he gave before he died, talking about the casting, which he thought was fantastic, and he thought they really captured the look and feel of the city. But he hated Fancher’s original screenplay, because it stripped out all the subtlety and themes of the novel—it was just an action movie. It wasn’t until David Peoples did a revision to the script and put that stuff back in that Dick got on board with the production. So when you say Fancher is the writer of 2049, it doesn’t encourage me to go see it.
Here’s a quote from that interview: “The thing I had in mind all of the time, from the beginning of it, was The Man Who Fell to Earth. This was the paradigm. That’s why I was so disappointed when I read [Fancher’s] first Blade Runner screenplay, because it was the absolute antithesis of what was done in The Man Who Fell to Earth. In other words, it was a destruction of the novel. But now, it’s magic time. You read [Peoples’] screenplay and then you go to the novel, and it’s like they’re two halves to one meta-artwork, one meta-artifact. It’s just exciting.”
Good point. Strange that it was Fancher who first convinced PKD to option 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.' Maybe Fancher will correct and make-up for his original shortcomings, but I'm doubtful.
One of my own concerns for BR2049 is that it might've gotten its cookies stolen by "Westworld." I'm a bit nervous that this sequel's themes are going to seem (unfairly) derivative of HBO's event TV series which also uses synthetic human characters to make its statements about our own memory, free will, and raison d'etre. I guess I'm just saying the sequel's timing might hurt it. Before "Westworld," I can't think of another major pop culture property which did such a recent and deep dive into this same territory. Yes, there was Sci-Fi's "Battlestar Galactica," but it ended way back in 2009.
On another note, I'll take this time to make another pitch for Boom! Studios' fantastic graphic novel of the unabridged _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_, in which artist Tony Parker does a superb job of retelling PKD's novel using the look of Ridley Scott's film. I cannot praise this work enough. And it's a fun way for fans of the novel and/or film to re-familiarize themselves with the source material before BR2049 drops this October!
Thanks @BionicDave - I do have that collection and it's beautiful. I haven't taken the time to read it yet, but I'm adding it to my summer reading list now. Actually, I think it's visible in that bathroom library photo. I too believe BR2049 is going to be compared, unfairly or not, to 'West World' (which I enjoyed).
Wow. I just watched and wanted to share this fascinating look/listen to the importance of the sound of Blade Runner, focusing mainly on Vangelis's personal and haunting score.
While it all looks very well shot, I'm still having some trouble believing that this world presented in these trailers is the future of the world we saw in the original. Maybe because it's a different director, but... BR2049 looks too... clean? Organized? Perhaps it's just that the world we are introduced to in the original was still on its knees following cataclysm, and now the world has had a few decades to rebound and strengthen. I don't know. These are the words of someone desperate to like this sequel. lol
I would like to enjoy it to, but it's beginning to look like well-cast, polished fan fiction. Not worthy of the PKD reputation.
Ridley Scott made some great films (Alien, Blade Runner, etc), but now it appears that he is spending his twilight years making sequels that only serve to explain away most of the magic behind them while making a decent amount of money at the BO.
This happens to aging directors, I'm told. Midichlorians anyone?
Oh I totally agree, and it's not just aging directors selling out. Look at Harrison Ford. For decades he was so against returning to Han Solo and Rick Deckard, even Indiana Jones, he'd've rather died. Now he's all too eager to go back to the well. Though perhaps it's more than the paycheck; I think these guys also just want to keep working, and the only stuff they can get is this retread franchise material - because Hollywood must frontload all of its exciting original projects with young actors/directors. Blade Runner 2049 might end up being a terrific film, but the only reason it was made is because Hollywood desperately needs sequels and franchises. Two or three more movies with Ryan Gosling chasing future bad guys? Hollywood's crossing its fingers that Gosling and Villeneuve can takeover the Blade Runner legacy.
Comments
Not sure what I think of this, although I am predisposed to checking it out, most likely on my home theatre.
That scene where Gosling confronts Ford - in a Korean temple? - makes it seem like this story might be Silence-of-the-Lambs-y... with a young genius on a difficult case needing to get guidance from an older, darker genius. But then in a later scene, when pretty brunette tells Gosling "you're special," it evokes lines from the original film (well mostly the Theatrical Cut, but still relevant if Deckard is a Tyrell-manufactured replicant capable of living past four years) which just might suggest that the Gosling character is also a replicant blade runner. Hmm. I'm probably wrong on both counts. lol
Also looks like Jared Leto's character is that generation's Tyrell?... and we see characters which kind of resemble a Leon and a Pris, maybe even a Rachel too.
NOW I'm worried that maybe I don't like the original Star Wars trilogy quite as much as I did before those prequels came out. Maybe poor follow-ups can indeed sully our feelings for the beloved original material.
Or maybe it's just age that does that.
October 6th!!!
I'm still not sold, but I'm a very hard sell on this one.
If this film is going to be entertaining or interesting, the director Denis Villeneuve will need to find his own identity and territory, and at the same time still be faithful and linked to the original Blade Runner without being insulting or shallow. It's going to be quite the challenge and I hope he's up to the task.
I do find it interesting how one of the fundamental points of Blade Runner was to make us question how much we value what’s “original” or “real” over expertly produced copies (and by extension, updates and continuations) which seems analogous to this discussion on BR2049.
I don’t think BR's as much about how much we value what is real over what is artificial, than it is what aspects of the real make it more valuable to us than the artificial, and why. In the novel, Dick was expressing his feeling that as technology was becoming more and more developed and integrated into our society, humanity was becoming less “human” (and this was in 1968!). But your point remains valid, and it does have a nice symmetry to it.
I'm certain that the studio execs would disagree. Besides Blade Runner, I wonder how many films did as poorly at the box office and with critics that still got a big budget sequel years later? Does the Wizard of Oz count?
Enjoyable & lively Blade Runner review from Siskel & Ebert at timecode 19:15
While I am probably more interested in seeing this than you, I agree with your desire for a GOOD Asimov adaptation over this. Perhaps one day Harlan Ellis's screenplay for I, Robot will be adapted.
As for Ellison’s I, Robot script, we can only hope. But I'm not holding my breath.
I don't think that lower-middle class, white collar melancholy that pervades Dick's work ever really makes it to the screen, even in the better received adaptations.
As long as the essence of what the creator is trying to accomplish with the story is there in the adaptation, I'm pretty flexible with how the story is handled. And, yeah, BR tends to spend more energy on the surface elements of the book than on the core themes, but I think in the end the essence of the novel is there on the screen.
Here’s a quote from that interview: “The thing I had in mind all of the time, from the beginning of it, was The Man Who Fell to Earth. This was the paradigm. That’s why I was so disappointed when I read [Fancher’s] first Blade Runner screenplay, because it was the absolute antithesis of what was done in The Man Who Fell to Earth. In other words, it was a destruction of the novel. But now, it’s magic time. You read [Peoples’] screenplay and then you go to the novel, and it’s like they’re two halves to one meta-artwork, one meta-artifact. It’s just exciting.”
One of my own concerns for BR2049 is that it might've gotten its cookies stolen by "Westworld." I'm a bit nervous that this sequel's themes are going to seem (unfairly) derivative of HBO's event TV series which also uses synthetic human characters to make its statements about our own memory, free will, and raison d'etre. I guess I'm just saying the sequel's timing might hurt it. Before "Westworld," I can't think of another major pop culture property which did such a recent and deep dive into this same territory. Yes, there was Sci-Fi's "Battlestar Galactica," but it ended way back in 2009.
On another note, I'll take this time to make another pitch for Boom! Studios' fantastic graphic novel of the unabridged _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_, in which artist Tony Parker does a superb job of retelling PKD's novel using the look of Ridley Scott's film. I cannot praise this work enough. And it's a fun way for fans of the novel and/or film to re-familiarize themselves with the source material before BR2049 drops this October!
Ridley Scott made some great films (Alien, Blade Runner, etc), but now it appears that he is spending his twilight years making sequels that only serve to explain away most of the magic behind them while making a decent amount of money at the BO.
This happens to aging directors, I'm told. Midichlorians anyone?