Jump to content
Overstreet

Blade Runner 2

Recommended Posts

NBooth   

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
NBooth   

 

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
M. Leary   
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

These advertisements make this seem such a straight-laced, obvious story (evil genius makes army of robots to "save" humanity, only to be stopped by anti-hero cop and vintage model Harrison Ford).  It can't be this obvious and on the nose, can it?  It's too plain.

Edited by Buckeye Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joel Mayward wrote:
: The original film length ranges from 113 to 117 minutes according to Wikipedia's page on the various versions.

That didn't sound right to me -- I could have sworn that the VHS version I watched many decades ago had five minutes of extra footage that were missing from the US theatrical cut and all subsequent Ridley Scott-approved versions -- so I went and checked my copy of the five-disc Blu-Ray, and saw that the back cover says every version of the film in there is 117 minutes *except* for the 110-minute workprint. And that didn't sound right to me either!

So I just popped each version in my Blu-Ray player and found that, yes, the runtimes for all four versions of the film fall within a 62-second range: the 1982 US theatrical is 1:57:16, the 1982 international theatrical is 1:57:25 (only nine extra seconds!), the 1992 director's cut is 1:56:34 (the shortest version of them all!), and the 2007 final cut is 1:57:36 (the longest version of them all! -- though how much of that is just extra space in the end credits for the 2007 restoration, I don't know).

I'm... surprised that all of the officially released versions of the film are so close together in length, but there you go.

FWIW, Denis Villeneuve has made only three films so far that went over two hours (based on the runtimes at Wikipedia): Sicario (2015, 121 minutes), Incendies (2010, 130 minutes) and Prisoners (2013, 153 minutes). So Blade Runner 2049 would appear to be his personal longest film, too.

... Was Prisoners really that long? Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alien: Covenant spawned something like four short films that filled the film's many gaps. Now Blade Runner 2049 is getting its own short films, the first of which is directed by Sir Ridley's son Luke.

 

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

×