I wouldn’t have liked to see Bowie being evil like that. But anyone would have been better than Leto. Thank goodness he’s only in it for about 5 minutes.
Three questions: would Philip K. Dick have recognized Blade Runner as having a spiritual connection to his work? And, would Dick have recognized 2049 as having a spiritual connection to the first film? Finally, does Ridley Scott recognize 2049 as having a spiritual connection to his 1982 film? Before the public rushes to judgement as to whether the second film comes as a result of the earlier one, I think those creators should have their first crack at this/these question/s. Because until they at least have an inkling as to how these creators might have felt about them, the public's only really capable of judging as to whether or not they think their seats justified their ticket stubs. And, how was the popcorn.
I tried to read the PKD book once. Maybe I was too young, and should give it another try, but I hated it at the time. Couldn’t care less if he approved of the film.
I finally watched this last night and if it was shorter, I'd say it was better than the original which IMO was all visuals and not much of a plot
I want to say that I read that PKD didn't like the movie. Or, rather, he didn't see any connection between it and his original story. Frankly, if you read the original story, I'm inclined to agree with him whether you love or hate the movie. It's just a totally separate vibe and the angles Dick was exploring were vastly different from the focus of the film.
Thanks for that. By the same token, I'm certainly willing to give Villeneuve the same latitude in re-interpreting Scott's take on it, for his own work. [GOOSE/GANDER]
I think Ridley was more intent on recreating the atmosphere of the book onscreen and running with it then he was in some of PKD’s story choices. For instance, animals are all mostly extinct in the novel. This isn’t really explained or touched upon in the movie besides Tyrell’s synthetic owl and the replicants’ synthetic snake. There’s a lot that wouldn’t have translated from the book to the screen in a two hour movie. I prefer the world Ridley created to PKD’s book.
Well, it is two different mediums. If you're reading a book, it's your own fault if you're twitching in your seat; in a theater, it's the filmmaker's.
Not necessarily—it could be that the book is just dry and boring. (Not saying that’s my take on Electric Sheep).
I also suspect that the notion of Deckard insisting that his wife take a drug "to make her agree with her husband" would have been considered distasteful even back in the '80s. I'd hate to think about what a plot device like that would see done to the parties responsible in current year.
My understanding is that Dick liked what he saw when shown early pieces of the film. quote from this web site Ever Wondered What Philip K. Dick Thought About Blade Runner? "Now the lights come up a second time. Dick looks me straight in the eye and says, 'How is this possible? How can this be? Those are not the exact images, but the texture and tone of the images I saw in my head when I was writing the original book! The environment is exactly as how I'd imagined it! How'd you guys do that? How did you know what I was feeling and thinking?!'
Wow. That's actually a pretty wild story, all things considered. PKD wrote some bizarre stuff and he was an odd fellow by what I've read about him. Having that guy say, "Yeah, you got inside my head," is either high praise or a reason for concern.
