Support NeoGAF

[Chained Prometheus]

We're talking about the shots themselves and the decisions made within each of them, divorced from the script and story context of each. You don't have to have seen either film to be able to see the differences in each of them.

And the differences don't automatically mean one is greater than the other in this case. Everyone has personal preferences, but I don't really think the original film is so great a visual feast that it trounces on the new film in each and every shot. They're just two different experiences imo.

What we have here are two insanely gorgeously looking films with different styles of composition being utilized. The original has a more baroque Orson Welles vibe, while the new film seems to be striking for a more minimal Ingmar Bergman/Andrei Tarkovsky vibe.

 

[Vandiger]

Eh, didn't really get me hyped. I don't expect much from another Ridley sequel.

 

[-griffy-]

Find it frankly kind of baffling that people are actually complaining about the visuals presented in this trailer.

 

[TheGameshark]

My most anticipated movie.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Looks dope..

 

[Chumley]

And the differences don't automatically mean one is greater than the other in this case. Everyone has personal preferences, but I don't really think the original film is so great a visual feast that it trounces on the new film in each and every shot. They're just two different experiences imo.

What we have here are two insanely gorgeously looking films with different styles of composition being utilized. The original has a more baroque Orson Welles vibe, while the new film seems to be striking for a more minimal Ingmar Bergman/Andrei Tarkovsky vibe.

No one said it's an objective truth that one is greater than the other. It's subjective. That's the point of the discussion, to discuss the differences in styles and for people to say what they think is more visually interesting or atmospheric.

 

[Hydrus]

Some screenshots I grabbed as huge PNGs. I'll edit them out if necessary.

Gawd dang that girl is pretty! *whistles*

 

[Carlius]

is that bautista? haha, hell yeah

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

Where are the people saying the visuals are inferior to the original or ugly?

 

[Chained Prometheus]

Find it frankly kind of baffling that people are actually complaining about the visuals presented in this trailer.

As an amateur filmmaker who wishes he had the materials/budget/skill to make a film look this amazing, I find it a bit insulting myself.

But I do get where people are coming from, even if I vehemently disagree.

 

[Razorback]

Why would it look the same as the original? It's a different time period.

The time period is not what is making it look different, the art style is. And your point doesn't work because the technology in this looks the same as the original. The guns, the clothes, the cars.

 

[moltonasty]

Visually orgasmic.

I never wanted or expected a sequel to Blade Runner, but I'm slowly coming around to the idea. This looks solid so far, and Vilanueve is incredible.

LET'S GO

 

[- J - D -]

I disagree that the visuals can't be judged from a trailer. Every trailer thread there's people saying, you can't judge anything from a trailer. So why make a thread if we're not allowed to share our impressions based on a trailer? Can't judge story from a trailer? Okay fair. Can't judge the film's quality? Of course. Can't judge characters? Fair. Actors? Maybe. But visuals are totally fair to judge outside of some heavy CGI characters and action effects that probably aren't done yet.

We're talking about the shots themselves and the decisions made within each of them, divorced from the script and story context of each. You don't have to have seen either film to be able to see the differences in each of them. The visuals and composition of a shot can be appreciated on their own merits.

I think it's a silly comparison. You can judge the visuals from the trailer all you want, I never made any attempt to dissuade anyone from discussion, which is a leap the both of you made to accuse me of. But you'll notice that the original post I quoted made a blanket statment about the new film and I think that's a misguided destination to reach based on the comparisons made this early.

By all means, discuss the visuals.

 

[LionPride]

How many high pitched Gosling screams will we get?

 

[Inferno313]

Why would it look the same as the original? It's a different time period.

Yup. I think folks aren't stopping to think about how much things can change in 30 years.

As an example, this was Times Square in the 80s.

This is Times Square today, about 30 years later.

If anything, there's an argument to be made that they could've diverged further from the original film. Though, I like what we have here.

 

[Guy.brush]

Those ProRes and 1080 Quicktime links have been disabled because of high traffic.

Any other links for high-res trailer?

 

[polyh3dron]

They nailed the music as well

Well yeah, aping the Vangelis opening cue for the trailer doesn't mean much for the actual movie though.

 

[Ran rp]

I disagree that the visuals can't be judged from a trailer. Every trailer thread there's people saying, you can't judge anything from a trailer. So why make a thread if we're not allowed to share our impressions based on a trailer? Can't judge story from a trailer? Okay fair. Can't judge the film's quality? Of course. Can't judge characters? Fair. Actors? Maybe. But visuals are totally fair to judge outside of some heavy CGI characters and action effects that probably aren't done yet.

We're talking about the shots themselves and the decisions made within each of them, divorced from the script and story context of each. You don't have to have seen either film to be able to see the differences in each of them. The visuals and composition of a shot can be appreciated on their own merits.

Indeed. I'm comparing the set design as much as I'm comparing the composition.

 

[-shadow-]

The trailer looks really well made, but it seems more like someone emulating the style of the original instead of looking like a new one. Now that's not a bad thing because it's an amazing style, but something feels ever so slightly off. For example:

This is a truly terrible effect. The shot is amazing, but man the car and Gosling look completely out of place. Though the film still has a bunch of months of course so we'll see.

Spoiler

Also, that terrible Vangelis reworking.

Have I somewhere missed some extra's? Because this is great!

 

[jufonuk]

Yes I am down for this

 

[Atilac]

Over-under on gosling being half replicant? and replicants having kids is a big part of the movies plot?

 

[- J - D -]

Well yeah, aping the Vangelis opening cue for the trailer doesn't mean much for the actual movie though.

I hope it's not like the Robocop 2014 remake where the original movie score cues are limited to only the opening scene of the movie.

 

[Acidote]

Gawd dang that girl is pretty! *whistles*

Yeah, Ana de Armas having two huge screenshots with nothing else there but her is completely random. I don't know how that happened.

 

[Razorback]

Yup. I think folks aren't stopping to think about how much things can change in 30 years.


If anything, there's an argument to be made that they could've diverged further from the original film. Though, I like what we have here.

Aside from the holograms, there's nothing there that wasn't the same in the original.

 

[Bronx-Man]

No. The score is done by the same composer who did music in Sicario - Jóhann Jóhannsson, but the music in this trailer is the rework of the original theme.

Boooooooooooooooooo

 

[Bobby Roberts]

This is a truly terrible effect.

amazing

 

[Chumley]

amazing

I think he means that there's no discernible motivation for the lighting on Gosling and his car. It's coming from directly behind each of them but the ground around them isn't lit the same way, makes them looked pasted in. There's also no shadow on Gosling.

 

[kopitarrulez_11]

Leto as the villain will be interesting giving that he gave a bad taste in peoples mouth as the joker

 

[Magic Mushroom]

The time period is not what is making it look different, the art style is. And your point doesn't work because the technology in this looks the same as the original. The guns, the clothes, the cars.

It looks evolved from that, with holograms and stuff. Makes sense to me.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

He meant "it's a truly terrible effect" because that's what he said, and my response is that is an amazing bit of critque.

"truly terrible."

Okay.

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

I think he means that there's no discernible motivation for the lighting on Gosling and his car. It's coming from directly behind each of them but the ground around them isn't lit the same way, makes them looked pasted in. There's also no shadow on Gosling.

I think set dressing and design is fair game to judge, but stuff like that is something they can fix later and a bit premature to be calling it "truly terrible."

 

[Chained Prometheus]

Leto as the villain will be interesting giving that he gave a bad taste in peoples mouth as the joker

This actually might be the performance that redeems Leto in the eyes of the public. Dude seems pretty damn creepy in this trailer.

Also, someone else at another forum realized what Dave Bautista's role in the film is:

Spoiler

Looks like he's playing the Replicant that Officer K kills in the updated version of Fancher's original opening scene for the first film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_nCDvo7P7c

 

[maniac-kun]

The synth soundtrack is a lot like the original score. Which is awesome.

 

[Chumley]

I think set dressing and design is fair game to judge, but stuff like that is something they can fix later and a bit premature to be calling it "truly terrible."

It's truly terrible in this trailer. Hopefully they fix it, since it would be a very easy fix to an otherwise fantastic shot.

 

[fierrotlepou]

I still think Harrison Ford doesn't want to be in this movie. Same with Star Wars. They shouldn't have included him and if they did. they should've just made it a cameo.

 

[Lord Error]

amazing

That shot does look really weird, like the car and Gosling don't belong to the scene. I called that out earlier too, it looks like a really bad green screen work.

 

[ShutterMunster]

Are we really gonna cherry pick shots from a 2 minute trailer?

And yeah, this movie might not be a carbon copy of the original. OH, the horror.

THIS.

Man, if y'all don't get the FOH with this nonsense.

Movie looks excellent. It looks exactly how I would expect a modern day Blade Runner film to look. I'm pleased Rodger didn't go back to film on this one, though it would have been nice if he shot it on the A65.

Oh and to those judging the Gosling wasteland shot...the film hasn't even been properly graded yet.

 

[bounchfx]

Fucking amazing trailer

 

[Into the Light]

That """love scene""" would certainly have not made the cut.

I understand why you say that. Actually its so crazy to me that you picked that scene. Man what a trippy thing.

So weird. I agree though.

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

I wonder if it's less about plunging society into chaos and more about humanity forcing itself to face and answer the question "Why don't we just let the replicants take over? It's not like we're good for this place."

Because I'm also wondering if the cities look a little cleaner because Replicants are populating the cities now, working in them, cleaning them up. The wastelands fall into deeper disrepair - that's where the grunge is going as the robots make the world livable again.

It'd be an interesting notion to pursue: What if our creations evolved to be better and more worthy of survival than we are?

Yeah I think that's a good point to the cleaner visuals. It's to show the waning presence of humanity. Less lights on, less trash. Just going off the desolate tone of the trailer, it almost feels like humanity is on the verge of extinction.

 

[Chained Prometheus]

THIS.

Man, if y'all don't get the FOH with this nonsense.

Movie looks excellent. It looks exactly how I would expect a modern day Blade Runner film to look. I'm pleased Rodger didn't go back to film on this one, though it would have been nice if he shot it on the A65.

Oh and to those judging the Gosling wasteland shot...the film hasn't even been properly graded yet.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Roger did shoot the film on the ARRI Alexa65. I'd need to double check on that to be sure though.

 

[Ran rp]

THIS.

Man, if y'all don't get the FOH with this nonsense.

Movie looks excellent. It looks exactly how I would expect a modern day Blade Runner film to look. I'm pleased Rodger didn't go back to film on this one, though it would have been nice if he shot it on the A65.

Oh and to those judging the Gosling wasteland shot...the film hasn't even been properly graded yet.

But who asked for a carbon copy? You guys look so silly raging out over mild discussions on art direction.

 

[daviyoung]

I still think Harrison Ford doesn't want to be in this movie. Same with Star Wars. They shouldn't have included him and if they did. they should've just made it a cameo.

He's definitely the weakest part of the trailer, as he was the weakest thing in Star Wars, aside from yellow alien I guess.

 

[Inferno313]

That """love scene""" would certainly have not made the cut.

Heh. When I showed the film to my fiancé for the first time, who ultimately ended up really really enjoying it, her reaction to that scene was: "Wait, what the fuck?"

 

[SchrodingerC]

Boooooooooooooooooo

Boy, you best delete that boo, JJ is a fantastic composer.

Yes a Vangelis soundtrack will be missed, but JJ is a good replacement that'll fit with Villeneuve's vision.

 

[Into the Light]

Heh. When I showed the film to my fiancé for the first time, who ultimately ended up really really enjoying it, her reaction to that scene was: "Wait, what the fuck?"

Its the only scene that drags to me, and bothers me. Everything else is legendary.

 

[WadiumArcadium]

I still think Harrison Ford doesn't want to be in this movie. Same with Star Wars. They shouldn't have included him and if they did. they should've just made it a cameo.

Ford gave his best performance in years in TFA. It's far too early to judge his performance in this yet. We've barely seen half a minute of him.

 

[-shadow-]

amazing

The trailer looks absolutely amazing, but this shot in specific sticks out like a sore thumb. Yes I've seen way worse effects in many different films, but in the context of the rest of the trailer. Yes I find it terrible. But like I said, the film still has a bunch of months left so we'll see.

 

[ShutterMunster]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Roger did shoot the film on the ARRI Alexa65. I'd need to double check on that to be sure though.

He didn't. I know this for a fact.

 

[Gilzor]

So that's totally Gosling bursting through the wall after Deckard right...?