Overstreet

Blade Runner 2

84 posts in this topic

A teaser. Not, as of now, embeddable, but I'm sure the YouTube version will be up soonish.

EDIT: Looks like Joel Mayward and I were posting at the same time.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teaser is on YouTube now. So uh, do replicants age?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deckard isn't a replicant, no matter what Ridley Scott says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dammit... As much as I hate the idea of a sequel, this teaser got me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give Deakins an Oscar already. 

Otherwise? Ehhhh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr. Arkadin said:

Give Deakins an Oscar already. 

Otherwise? Ehhhh.


I love the look.  Some of the moments at Deckard's digs seem to be actually inspired by Philip K. Dick's descriptions in his novel, while also retaining Ridley Scott's vision.

Yeah, I was feeling it with the teaser... not so much with the trailer.  That date on the stone at the 1:31 mark - 6 10 21 - I wonder if this is where Deckard buried Rachel.  The original film doesn't reveal her incept date, but it wouldn't be hard to believe that she was "born" in late 2017.  Or, perhaps she was retired.  Anyway, I kind of thought they would try to make a statement about our current political/corporate climate - I just wish they hadn't used a sledgehammer, which is what this trailer seems to indicate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 hours ago, Mr. Arkadin said:

Give Deakins an Oscar already. 

Otherwise? Ehhhh.

 

12 hours ago, John Drew said:


I love the look.  Some of the moments at Deckard's digs seem to be actually inspired by Philip K. Dick's descriptions in his novel, while also retaining Ridley Scott's vision.

Yeah, I was feeling it with the teaser... not so much with the trailer.  That date on the stone at the 1:31 mark - 6 10 21 - I wonder if this is where Deckard buried Rachel.  The original film doesn't reveal her incept date, but it wouldn't be hard to believe that she was "born" in late 2017.  Or, perhaps she was retired.  Anyway, I kind of thought they would try to make a statement about our current political/corporate climate - I just wish they hadn't used a sledgehammer, which is what this trailer seems to indicate.

Dick famously hated Fancher's draft of the script (see pg. 19ff for the last interview with Dick on the film, and I think... anything. He died shortly after). And now Fancher has sole credit on this script. Dick's problem with the original was that it looked like a "lurid collision of androids and humans blowing each other up." This trailer looks like... androids and humans blowing each other up.

Dick did like Peoples' rewrite of the script, though, especially the ending. As Dick describes it, Peoples essentially rescued the core themes of the novel by reconfiguring Fancher's script entirely. (Peoples also went on to write Unforgiven and Twelve Monkeys.) In the Starlog interview, he talks about how the idea for Do Androids Dream... came from his research for Man in the High Castle. While trawling libraries for primary material on the Gestapo, he encountered a diary of an S.S. soldier:

"That was in the late forties when I read that diary and I still remember the one line he had in there: 'We are kept awake at night by the cries of starving children.' I still remember that line, and that influenced me. I thought, there is amongst us something that is bipedal humanoid, morphologically identical to the human being but which is not human... And there, in the forties, was born my idea that within our species is a bifurcation between the truly human and that which mimics human, and when I saw those stills of Rutger Hauer I thought Holy Jesus, it's come back!"

Fancher's original script had Deckard trying to talk Rachel into committing suicide for some reason. Per Dick:

"If I want to know if I've died and gone to Hell, that's how I'll know because they'll turn all my books over to Mickey Spillane to rewrite and they'll all come out with 'Two shots rang out because the replicant Rachel has shot herself, which is the least she could do.' But that's not there now. Peoples jettisoned all that crap."

Oddly, Hampton does not see it this way. His account has always been nearly the opposite of Dick's:

"Okay. I saw a script during that…I still hadn’t met David [Peoples], the film wasn’t finished being shot, but somebody sent me a script of David’s that he’d done. And I felt sorry for him, because it was good. It was slash-up—part mine, part his—but there was a lot of him in this script. This one I read, it wasn’t shot. It was, I guess, his first take on the whole thing. And it was really interesting. It was much more populist than mine, more accessible, I thought. But it was exciting, and he had a certain exciting way of writing. Not the way I write, you know, we write very differently. And I thought, They’re not going to do this either; this guy’s worse off than I am!"

--

The problem with Fancher's account is that his original script is out there, and parts of it do read exactly like the end of a 128 page Spillane Hammer novel. Watching the trailer brought all this backstory to mind - as it seems like a trailer for the script Fancher had originally written.

Edited by M. Leary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now