T
TorontoReign
Guest
Well said. I bet liberties will be taken that might not have been the authors intent.
Blade Runner 2
- Thread starter Tagaziel
- Start date
Well said. I bet liberties will be taken that might not have been the authors intent.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
You have every right to be concerned. As I am too, as you can see in my first post. But what I mean is that if a movie is bad, it at least doesn't tarnish previous quality movies. And with it being the case that Blade Runner is a perfectly whole story as it is, it would be no problem to ignore a new installment if it doesn't match.
Last edited:
To be fair, Blade Runner is only slightly related to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
The story lines have pretty big differences and it's mostly the world & the ambience that was kept. PKD himself had very little to do with the movie, as he was not really involved at all. He set the mood in his book, but the screen writers and director did the rest.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
It was an amazing thing to hear the story about his personal blade runner screening. They had 10 minutes of footage with music already in it, but after watching it he asked. . "Could I maybe see it again?" Brings a tear to my eye it does. .
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
I don't think it's accurate to say they're only slightly related. PKD created the setting (including the off-world colonies and nearly extinct animals), Deckard, Rachel, Roy Batty and the other replicants, the replicant retirement squad, the VK test, and the core philosophical dilemma. Sure, they changed or omitted lots of things for the movie (Mercerism, Deckard's wife, the names of Tyrell and Sebastian, etc.) but I think the movie is still at least 75-80% PKD. Most importantly, the theme of the story is uniquely PKD.
But in any case, there's a simple solution to my criticism of this project: don't screw it up.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
There's an even simpler solution: don't do it at all.
I always felt that by omitting animals from the film (except for the owl, IIRC) Blade Runner lost quite a bit of its connection with the novel. The whole ecological theme and all the motifs related to it were lost. Also, I don't recall a nuclear war being mentioned in the film, while the book is essentially post-apocalyptic, not just dystopian.
On the other hand, I believe that the film explored the theme of artificial life in a somewhat more profound way (no thanks to Rutger Hauer and his performance as Roy Batty, or the rest of the crew for that matter), despite not having artificial animals, or going into detail as to what is the difference between replicants and humans (again, if I'm not wrong, biologically they're much the same, except that replicants have a lot shorter life span).
On the other hand, I believe that the film explored the theme of artificial life in a somewhat more profound way (no thanks to Rutger Hauer and his performance as Roy Batty, or the rest of the crew for that matter), despite not having artificial animals, or going into detail as to what is the difference between replicants and humans (again, if I'm not wrong, biologically they're much the same, except that replicants have a lot shorter life span).
However, it's been a while since I've read the novel, and the film has left a lot more vivid impression in my memory, simply because I've seen it first and multiple times since then, whereas I've read the book only once.
Spoiler tags because plot details from the book - which I imagine not everybody read.
If you read/saw them 10 years apart, and no one told you they were based on eachother, you'd probably thing they were similar, but say they were the same for 75%? Not even close.
Which is not to say that PKD didn't have a huge influence, don't get me wrong. I think PKD is in the top 10 best writers ever and that Blade Runner is likely the best movie ever made.
The movie however drops a lot of the core plot of the book (with good reason, it would've been a challenge to maintain a cohesive story if you had to explore all of it). Makes it seem like they're less related to me. To me it feels like "inspired by", not "adaption of".
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Of course... "Real Steel" was heavily based on the Twilight zone episode "Steel".
____________
I just had an odd thought... If Decker is a replicant (as of course his is)... Couldn't they set the movie even 7 or 8 years later, and Harrison Ford plays Decker ~several years into the designed shut-down/deterioration?
Last edited by a moderator:
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
The film is filled with references to animals and how they are nearly extinct. The film doesn't mention a nuclear war, but it's clear human society is dying or moving off-world because the Los Angeles of the movie is dirty, run down, and depopulated. That's why Sebastian has an entire apartment building to himself.
I 100% stand by 75%.SuAside said:
It's more like they took PKD's story and cut out some bits that wouldn't work or wouldn't fit in a movie, then changed some other bits to make the story cohesive after parts of the original had been removed (that's what screen adaptation is, and it was excellently done in this case). Compared to the short story Blade Runner has the same setting, the same general plot, most of the same characters, and the same central dilemma. It's the same story, re-forged to work in a movie. "Inspired by" could mean anything.
Blade Runner has more in common with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? than The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has in common with The Hobbit.
Another good example off the top of my head is The Outlaw Josey Wales, which is more different from the book Gone to Texas than Blade Runner is from the original story. In this case the screenwriters added lots of things that weren't in the book rather than (or in addition to) deleting things that were in the book. Yet it's unmistakably the same story and not a case of one "inspiring" the other.
FWIW I'm waiting to see whether Peter Jackson has the gall to write some sequels to Lord of the Rings once he's bled Tolkien's legacy dry.
The major difference between the story and the movie is that, in the movie, the replicants have compassion, while the replicants in the story are incapable of empathy or compassion.
Last edited:
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Didn't it have a snake in it? (It's been a while since I watched it, but I was sure that they examined a snake and found the manufacturers code printed on the scales.)
that's how they got to the dancer I think, but I am not sure.
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I like the first movie, but i am wondering if it isn't a bit overrated.
I mean, the music, the clothes, the acting, the scenery, all the aesthetic & atmosphere are totally awesome, in a level that is amongs the best in the whole movie history.
But if you look the story of the movie, not even compared to the book, it seems to me as an average/correct story with an handfull moments of glory.
Some of the scenes are masterpiece, but not the most of it. For most of the movie, the aesthetic/atmosphere/acting to the trick.
And i am not saying this isn't important. In order to produce a great atmosphere it need a huge amount of work, in the thinking and in the making.
And i am not even comparing the story of the movie with the one of the book, that is totally incredible, like most of K.Dick work.
So if Ridley Scott manage to convey the same atmosphere, with an OK story, it could somehow work.
The problem are :
- Are Ridley & other guys still insterested/skilled enough to handle a rich & complex aesthetic ?
- Will the story be at least correct ? I mean, the number of crap stories is incredibly high. When guys like JJ Abrahams are praised for their writting, you are left to wonder what criterions are taken into account.
- Even if they bring the right formula, could they justify doing the same stuff than they did 35 years ago ? Wouldn't it be better to make a re-release of the first one.
- If we would make a new Blade Runner movie to see how Philip K.Dick work is viewed today, it could be better to use new writter/directors, able to understand the work of K.Dick, and especially his thems and philosophies. I would better have someone like Andrew Nicoll, Vincenzo Natali, Terry Gilliam or John Carpenter try to depict the Dick's universe. Now it feels like dear old Ridley invented that universe.
I mean, the music, the clothes, the acting, the scenery, all the aesthetic & atmosphere are totally awesome, in a level that is amongs the best in the whole movie history.
But if you look the story of the movie, not even compared to the book, it seems to me as an average/correct story with an handfull moments of glory.
Some of the scenes are masterpiece, but not the most of it. For most of the movie, the aesthetic/atmosphere/acting to the trick.
And i am not saying this isn't important. In order to produce a great atmosphere it need a huge amount of work, in the thinking and in the making.
And i am not even comparing the story of the movie with the one of the book, that is totally incredible, like most of K.Dick work.
So if Ridley Scott manage to convey the same atmosphere, with an OK story, it could somehow work.
The problem are :
- Are Ridley & other guys still insterested/skilled enough to handle a rich & complex aesthetic ?
- Will the story be at least correct ? I mean, the number of crap stories is incredibly high. When guys like JJ Abrahams are praised for their writting, you are left to wonder what criterions are taken into account.
- Even if they bring the right formula, could they justify doing the same stuff than they did 35 years ago ? Wouldn't it be better to make a re-release of the first one.
- If we would make a new Blade Runner movie to see how Philip K.Dick work is viewed today, it could be better to use new writter/directors, able to understand the work of K.Dick, and especially his thems and philosophies. I would better have someone like Andrew Nicoll, Vincenzo Natali, Terry Gilliam or John Carpenter try to depict the Dick's universe. Now it feels like dear old Ridley invented that universe.
of course, the story is rather simple when you think about it and yeah I never found it super deep. But its the acting and the picture as whole that makes it a master piece in my opinion, just like you said the incredible design and all that. I always had the feeling that what made Blade Runner so exciting is the fact how well everything fitts together, by the things that they dont explain or show to you really. It makes your imagination go wild and inspiring you. Like as there is a whole world behind everything. Kinda a bit like the Star Wars movies (the first one), remember when Ben talks to Luke for the first time in the movie? He mentions the clone wars, but without saying anything about it really, yet you get the feeling like he experienced years of fighting and suffering somewhere in the universe on a different planet in a different time. That's what I call great movie maving something that they lost in a lot of movies today, because everything has to be "visualized" today, instead of actually leave some things to the imagination of the viewer. Giving you the oportunity to create your own visions. A bit like a good book if you want so.
Just take this little example of cinematic glory as example :
What does he say? Actually, almost nothing. Nothing substantial, and yet it's still amazing in my opinion. I always have the feeling like Roy is so full of incredible experience of the things he has done and seen.
mhmm yeah ... now I said basically what you said just with my own words :p
Just take this little example of cinematic glory as example :
What does he say? Actually, almost nothing. Nothing substantial, and yet it's still amazing in my opinion. I always have the feeling like Roy is so full of incredible experience of the things he has done and seen.
mhmm yeah ... now I said basically what you said just with my own words :p
Last edited by a moderator:
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Just to rephrase something i wrote earlier.
The story was, IMO, "mostly" average, with some real moments of glory. That scene isn't the only one of them.
To be fair, many great movies are like that. There are incredibly awesome scene, while most of them are mostly good.
But still, the design itself shouldn't be dismissed. It could be incredibly hard to deliver it.
It need huge work of thinking, defining all of it, be able to make people understand it, have ressources and the skilled people to deliver it, enough money/time when needed, and no executive meddling to screw the editing when you go on vacation.
The story was, IMO, "mostly" average, with some real moments of glory. That scene isn't the only one of them.
To be fair, many great movies are like that. There are incredibly awesome scene, while most of them are mostly good.
But still, the design itself shouldn't be dismissed. It could be incredibly hard to deliver it.
It need huge work of thinking, defining all of it, be able to make people understand it, have ressources and the skilled people to deliver it, enough money/time when needed, and no executive meddling to screw the editing when you go on vacation.
Kilgore Trout
Gyro Captain
I think the potential for screwing this up is far greater than the potential that they can get it right.
My gripe with this, like it is for all sequels made decades after the original, is: why can't the same group of talent (director, writers, actors, etc) make something new? Blade Runner doesn't need a sequel, and it certainly doesn't need one some thirty odd years later. Hollywood has really been scraping the bottom of the barrel of ideas the last few years.
My gripe with this, like it is for all sequels made decades after the original, is: why can't the same group of talent (director, writers, actors, etc) make something new? Blade Runner doesn't need a sequel, and it certainly doesn't need one some thirty odd years later. Hollywood has really been scraping the bottom of the barrel of ideas the last few years.
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
I'd like to see more of PKD's stories made into films rather than seeing sequels or remakes of the ones that have already been successfully cinematized. Now Wait for Last Year would be a good candidate, as would Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
Why Blade Runner is good? I could type up a lot of words, but it wouldn't be as good as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrjHaDwev5U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrjHaDwev5U
And yet, it only barely scratches the surface for me.
Wumbology
Actually a sentient CRT
Harrison Ford is so fucking dead to me. Whenever I see him in a film, he always looks so bored, tired, and passionless. I would like nothing more than to see some fresh star and not that haggard old piece of shit who keeps on making movies he clearly doesn't want to make. Same with Bruce Willis: both are clearly old men who don't want to make the movies they're in. The last time I saw some character or joy leak out of that decayed corpse of John Mclane was in Looper. Everything by them is clearly not what they want to be doing.