Support NeoGAF

[Razorback]

The problem with it looking too clean isn't that it lacks film grain. It's about texture, set decoration, shot composition and mainly just design.

Here's a piece of concept art for Blade Runner 2049

Compare it with Syd Mead's work from the original.

I know neither actually represents what the movies look like, but it shows the amount of thought that went into the little details. And [that to me is representative of the difference in visuals between the two films.

Villeneuve's Blade Runner trailer shows little ambition visually. There's no spectacle to any of it. It's 2017, we can do anything with computers. I wanted to see Syd Mead's cityscapes fully realized in a way that made me feel like it was a real place, and I didn't get any of that from the trailer.

 

[Einchy]

Well, just got done watching Sicario.

The tension buildup in this movie was insane, was on the edge of my seat the entire time.

Benicio had me legit shook, that night dinner scene, did not expect that shit.

Also, I know now why he went with this composer, fits really well with Blade Runner.

Dennis V da gawd

 

[PatThePassive]

What the hell is GiTS you guys and your acronyms man.

GiTS is Ghost in the Shell, the greatest cyberpunk film ever (95 movie)

GiTS is, presumably, Ghost in the Shell. A recent big budget Hollywood cyberpunk movie that drew heavily on Bladerunner and The Matrix. There's also a Japanese cartoon version out there as well.

GitS drew from the matrix?

I've heard the cartoon version is kind of really shit.

This at least I can tell is bait.

 

[Plasticine]

What the hell is GiTS you guys and your acronyms man.

GiTS is, presumably, Ghost in the Shell. A recent big budget Hollywood cyberpunk movie that drew heavily on Bladerunner and The Matrix. There's also a Japanese cartoon version out there as well.

 

[Replicant]

Visuals seems a bit minimalist for a blade runner film. I was expecting more heavily dense population.

 

[Javier23]

GiTS is, presumably, Ghost in the Shell. A recent big budget Hollywood cyberpunk movie that drew heavily on Bladerunner and The Matrix. There's also a Japanese cartoon version out there as well.

I've heard the cartoon version is kind of really shit.

 

[-griffy-]

Almost convinced that what people mean when they say it looks "clean" and lacks grit is that this new trailer has volumetric light in damn near every frame. Like, there's an atmosphere here. A literal atmosphere of stuff hanging in the air. You can see the light in the air as it bounces off all that particulate and scatters, and as a result obfuscates a lot of the underlying detail in a haze.

The original had water covering everything, giving you those specular highlights, and smoke twisting out of pipes into the air. This is still dirty, but maybe in a slightly different way. The air looks thick. It looks heavy. Soupy and wet and smog-filled. Like walking around and breathing that shit would be an ordeal. Which seems appropriate for a world ravaged by 30 more years of global warming. Where the original felt cold and unwelcoming, this feels warm and stifling.

 

[SigSig]

Hope the film will be a lot better than what this trailer suggests, because it looks really bland and uninspired.

 

[KodaRuss]

Looks amazing. Day 1.

 

[Into the Light]

I know what Ghost in the Shell is, just not Gits.

 

[Castorp]

wow it looks really bad.

 

[JaseMath]

Ryan Gosling's jacket needs a film credit. <3<3<3

 

[Macadinho94]

I should really watch the first movie huh?

 

[Flipyap]

Half the sets in this looks like grey box test levels that someone slapped one random texture on and called it a day.

 

[Flo_Evans]

yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes

 

[Guy.brush]

Do we know anything about the how "Androids are made" side of the story?

Trailer seems to indicate that the evil corporate head honcho guy is personally saying "happy birthday" to new Replicants and states that he can only make them so fast.
Doesn't really look like you could "build a workforce to support a world order" with it?

Especially if these things have a lifespan of 4 years? What are they actually building them for and why does it look like a more personal thing vs. building these androids in the hundreds of thousands?

 

[Skab]

GiTS is, presumably, Ghost in the Shell. A recent big budget Hollywood cyberpunk movie that drew heavily on Bladerunner and The Matrix. There's also a Japanese cartoon version out there as well.

Other way around.

 

[strafer]

Dennis V da gawd

Yes, and I also read that there will a sequel called Soldado, focusing on Benicios character which is awesome, shame that his not returning to direct it tho.

Taylor Sheridan will write it though.

 

[Sir Doom]

Visually nice but the trailer cut is bad

Quick cuts of none impact full scenes

 

[Mr. Hyde]

Yeah that settles jt. I will be requesting off work to go see this opening night. Great trailer. One of my favorite composers and directors working together on a sequel to one of my favorite movies. It looks amazing. I can't wait to see where the story goes.

 

[Rhaknar]

I want to ask you some questions

looks awesome

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

The problem with it looking too clean isn't that it lacks film grain. It's about texture, set decoration, shot composition and mainly just design.

Here's a piece of concept art for Blade Runner 2049

Compare it with Syd Mead's work from the original.

I know neither actually represents what the movies look like, but it shows the amount of thought that went into the little details. And [that to me is representative of the difference in visuals between the two films.

Villeneuve's Blade Runner trailer shows little ambition visually. There's no spectacle to any of it. It's 2017, we can do anything with computers. I wanted to see Syd Mead's cityscapes fully realized in a way that made me feel like it was a real place, and I didn't get any of that from the trailer.

In my opinion this comes down to the fact that we are living almost in the 2020 and anticipating the 2040s to look in a way that makes sense to the trends that can be observed in design today.

Maybe both films tried some realism in their predictions, but they had a vision of the 2010s in the 80s that extrapolated the fashion of the time, while designers of today are anticipating the new minimalist wave to extend for 20 more years. One can argue, following the same fallacy. We believe that we have a much better idea of what the 2040 would look like because there isn't that much room for things to change from today.

However, it is not unrealistic to assume that there was a minimalist trend in the Blade Runner universe and design moved on from what was in vogue in the 2010s just like we have moved on from 80s aesthetics. (we are thinking in terms of LED instead of Neon, etc)

The production design understands that they have to make the world look decades apart from the first film, and they are probably sacrificing the most elaborate visuals of that film to favor an apparent shift in fashion.

 

[Corpsepyre]

http://www.hd-trailers.net/movie/blade-runner-2049/

150 MB HD trailer here.

 

[Jarmel]

Villeneuve's Blade Runner trailer shows little ambition visually. There's no spectacle to any of it. It's 2017, we can do anything with computers. I wanted to see Syd Mead's cityscapes fully realized in a way that made me feel like it was a real place, and I didn't get any of that from the trailer.

lol the fuck is this?

This doesn't look visually ambitious? Are you kidding me?

 

[wandering]

Hmm. Didn't really do much for me. The editing could've have been better, and while the cinematography looks pretty and properly Deakin-ish, I'm not entirely sold on the color grading. Everything's squashed together.

 

[HStallion]

Just now got a chance to watch this properly with my sound system and big screen TV. Holy shit! The visuals, the music, the vibe! Everything looks so on the mark its kind of scary. Trying to not get too excited over this after being burned so many times by these sequels long after the fact to classics but this looks great and of course the creative team is made up the best around. Here's hoping this is a fraction as memorable as the original!

 

[7Th]

Looks like a pretty film that happens to be narratively and aesthetically misguided.

 

[i-Lo]

Loved the colouration. Was expecting a grungier look but the architecture and colour compensate well.

 

[AudioEppa]

Honestly this movie could suck from a storytelling standpoint. But I'm in for the visuals.

 

[Chained Prometheus]

lol the fuck is this?

This doesn't look visually ambitious? Are you kidding me?

Some of the negative comments in this thread are driving me to the point of insanity. lmao

 

[Into the Light]

Ryan Gosling's jacket needs a film credit. <3<3<3

LOl.


Also I have to laugh on a movie being good based on "the color merits." Jesus l; have heard it all. .

 

[Razorback]

lol the fuck is this?

This doesn't look visually ambitious? Are you kidding me?

It looks nice. But it's a direct sequel to one of the most visually arresting movies ever made. Maybe that's unfair, but you have to bring your A-game if you don't want to disappoint. Particularly if there's been an interval of 30 years that introduced to the medium a slew of new technical advances.

 

[Flipyap]

Gosling is such a replicant I cant stand it.

Leaving the city is stupid, The replicant stuff is weird, they are kinda born now? I always thought it was a more mechanical process that contributed to their treatment as tools,
but we see one plopping out of a sheet covered in goo and the world where people threat them as inhuman is starting to seem ludicrous.

They were organic, so they always had to be grown in some way. Replicants being essentially "rebranded" humans who are used as tools was the entire point of that movie. Its setting was always a disturbing and cruel place (which is why it's important that Deckard is a natural-grown human, because otherwise they all end up looking cartoonishly evil).

 

[bob_arctor]

Some of the negative comments in this thread are driving me to the point of insanity. lmao

"Does this look like Ghost in the Shell to you?" should be a Voight-Kampff question.

 

[Fisty]

lol the fuck is this?

This doesn't look visually ambitious? Are you kidding me?

Well, CGI setpieces aren't impressive to a lot of people nowadays. I know I can't be the only one that yawns when they see them. It's not 2004 anymore.

And that issue is compounded when you look at the insanely good miniatures and models of the original.

 

[LQX]

I'm surprised at how good Harrison Ford looks.

 

[Flipyap]

I'm surprised at how good Harrison Ford looks.

I'm surprised that he looks like he wants to be in this movie.

 

[Jarmel]

It looks nice. But it's a direct sequel to one of the most visually arresting movies ever made. Maybe that's unfair, but you have to bring your A-game if you don't want to disappoint. Particularly if there's been an interval of 30 years that introduced to the medium a slew of new technical advances.

Villeneuve is one of the best visual directors currently working and he's having Deakins with him. This looks like a stellar effort by both of them. Rather, it seems that their visual style isn't to your tastes and instead of just admitting that, you're saying they're half-assing it which is certainly not the case. Villeneuve isn't Scott 2.0 nor is he trying to be.

 

[Operations]

I'm surprised that he looks like he wants to be in this movie.

AFAIK Ford had a disgraceful experience in the first one, so par for the course.

 

[Protome]

I'm surprised that he looks like he wants to be in this movie.

Well they clearly let him wear his own clothes, that probably made him happy.

 

[strafer]

AFAIK Ford had a disgraceful experience in the first one, so par for the course.

Doesn't he say that he does on every movie?

 

[nomis]

Blade Runner is my favorite movie and when I saw the trailer I knew, I am not going to watch this. But it is the perfect Blade Runner for neo-gaf.

plus

No grit, no filth, no sex, no blood, nothing offensive. A nicely cleaned up version of a dystopian future.

Indistinguishable from parody.

 

[Ricky_R]

Visually orgasmic. Hopefully it's a gripping as Sicario.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

Looks like a very 2017 take on the Blade Runner aesthetic. Beautiful, but more sleek and sterile than I'd like. Reminiscent more of alien movie imagery and utopian set design than a cluttered, lived in mess.

 

[nomis]

Well they clearly let him wear his own clothes, that probably made him happy.

any year now we gonna be phasing out the shirt, boys

 

[Gallbaro]

The sequel that was not needed.

But

Could be good if they do not answer the question.

 

[PatThePassive]

They were organic, so they always had to be grown in some way. Replicants being essentially "rebranded" humans who are used as tools was the entire point of that movie. Its setting was always a disturbing and cruel place (which is why it's important that Deckard is a natural-grown human, because otherwise they all end up looking cartoonishly evil).

Its been a while since I saw the film, I thought it was more mechanical with the serial number on the scales of the replicant snake, and the lens thing in the eyes.

I'm at a lost with them being organic, whats with the enforced artificial life span(it was made to prevent them from becoming self aware?), super human strength, and that shop with artificial eyes and the mechanical engineer the replicants seduce who worked on replicants?

Are they just super clones branded as replicants?

The way they are presented here is still weird with the pseudo birth thing(unless there is a reason for it in the film)

 

[indigo-cyclops]

The problem with it looking too clean isn't that it lacks film grain. It's about texture, set decoration, shot composition and mainly just design.

Here's a piece of concept art for Blade Runner 2049

Compare it with Syd Mead's work from the original.

I know neither actually represents what the movies look like, but it shows the amount of thought that went into the little details. And [that to me is representative of the difference in visuals between the two films.

Villeneuve's Blade Runner trailer shows little ambition visually. There's no spectacle to any of it. It's 2017, we can do anything with computers. I wanted to see Syd Mead's cityscapes fully realized in a way that made me feel like it was a real place, and I didn't get any of that from the trailer.

Makes me want to watch the making-of again.

All that beautiful practical FX work...

 

[SiteSeer]

Blade Runner is my favorite movie and when I saw the trailer I knew, I am not going to watch this. But it is the perfect Blade Runner for neo-gaf.

https://www.cinematerial.com/media/posters/md/5f/5fuzhkwi.jpg[/IMGg]

plus

[img]http://www.medipost.co.uk/images/771.jpg[/imgg]

No grit, no filth, no sex, no blood, nothing offensive. A nicely cleaned up version of a dystopian future.[/QUOTE]

i get it but times change also. i mean we don't sweat nearly as much as we did in the 80s right? you can't expect everything to be in a kind of stasis ... 30 years is a whole generation.

 

[Savitar]

I loved how it looked, how it sounded. It all gave me that feeling of "so badly want to see this". I question how much it will appeal to other audiences, kinda worried it might do Fury Road business which was okay at best.