He trusts the filmmakers because unlike most people here he is aware that they have brains and that they use them. Wake up, simpleton.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Blade Runner 2049 Official Trailer
- Thread starter Kenzodielocke
- Start date
He trusts the filmmakers because unlike most people here he is aware that they have brains and that they use them. Wake up, simpleton.
Chained Prometheus
Member
PSY・S;236354016 said:
It's only so many "Where's all the grime and grit from the first film? The shots aren't as good!" posts before people are driven to desperate measures.
/sarcasm
In all seriousness though, Blade Runner is one of those films that- while unquestionably a technical and thematic achievement in cinema- isn't for everyone. Hell, I've seen my fair share of friends talk about not being a big fan of the original but still being excited by what they're seeing of the new film.
Will that be the dominant opinion? Probably not. But it is a thought that's out there.
That's how I feel. Gosling fits with this I think.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I think you can sum up the possibility of this film being a better Blade Runner than Blade Runner with how you lean towards answering these two questions:
Is Denis Villeneuve a better director at this point in his career than Ridley Scott was at the point he made Blade Runner?
And
Does Denis Villeneuve understand why Blade Runner worked as a story better than Ridley Scott does now?
If you ask those questions and the answers you find yourself leaning towards are both "yes," it seems like it would follow that you'd be pretty open to the idea of this being a better film (or at least, a better story) than the original.
Also I can't tell if Psy is taking a passive aggressive shot at me there or if he's just being a garden variety smartass. It's early and I haven't had enough coffee.
Is Denis Villeneuve a better director at this point in his career than Ridley Scott was at the point he made Blade Runner?
And
Does Denis Villeneuve understand why Blade Runner worked as a story better than Ridley Scott does now?
If you ask those questions and the answers you find yourself leaning towards are both "yes," it seems like it would follow that you'd be pretty open to the idea of this being a better film (or at least, a better story) than the original.
Also I can't tell if Psy is taking a passive aggressive shot at me there or if he's just being a garden variety smartass. It's early and I haven't had enough coffee.
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
Are you saying that Snyder's Superman would be perfect for the Blade Runner films? /s
True Savior
Member
Ryan Gosling.
No, just similar to one of her past looks.
Those questions don't have any bearing on anything aside from hype levels.
The first question is basically "who do you like more", and the other is odder because why would Ridley Scott at this moment and his understanding of his own movie have anything to do with a sequel not directed by him? I don't think anyone is this thread is asking for Ridley Scott to direct a sequel.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
They have direct bearing on the movie being made, though. If you think that Villeneuve has a better handle on his job right now than Ridley did back in 1982, if you look at their filmmaking skills, and consider Villeneuve to be in a better position, how does that not speak to confidence in what it is he's making?
I mean, the answer to both questions could be no, too, which is fine, but I think those two questions aren't immaterial. They're kinda important questions: Is the director good (or better) than the original, and does he exhibit a better understanding of the story?
If you think he does, I can see why you might also think it's a possibility he ends up making a better film. He might also fuck it up, who knows. Even great artists fumble. But it's not so much "I like X better than Y" and that's it. It can be, I guess, but that's not the aim w/ those questions, I don't think.
I dunno. It has something to do with "hype level" sure, but it's also trying to get at why someone might think that based on not much more than a couple commercials, some plot description, and the cast/crew listing. Someone who thinks Villeneuve is a better director than Scott, has a better understanding of the story and its themes than he didit seems like it would follow they would also be open to the notion that Villeneuve could make a better Blade Runner than Scott did.
Not that he will, that it's a definite, but that he could.
Dennis Villeneuve is a good director, liking him more than Ridley Scott means you might like the movie more, sure. But better director in technical skills or even for you personal opinion doesn't always translate to better movie. All I'm seeing is people who really, really love Villeneuve saying it'll definitely be a better movie, when all there is to go on is promotional material where most of what excites everybody is the fact that it's evoking the original.
Could he make a better movie? Yeah, he could. But that could be said about literally any movie that isn't out yet. Sure you got some talent here(I'd argue not so much in casting but to each his own) but that doesn't always translate even to it's fans. So it's just hype levels right now, and what you feel over your own excitement for a thirty year old sequel. My meaning is that it's an odd argument to be having in the first place.
Me and Prometheus hashed it out, but expecting already for a movie that isn't out to be better and not have anyone realize it until ten years after came out is multiple levels of jumping to conclusions.
Could he make a better movie? Yeah, he could. But that could be said about literally any movie that isn't out yet. Sure you got some talent here(I'd argue not so much in casting but to each his own) but that doesn't always translate even to it's fans. So it's just hype levels right now, and what you feel over your own excitement for a thirty year old sequel. My meaning is that it's an odd argument to be having in the first place.
Me and Prometheus hashed it out, but expecting already for a movie that isn't out to be better and not have anyone realize it until ten years after came out is multiple levels of jumping to conclusions.
I really like Denis but I'd have to answer that his current form while excellent isn't Scott Alien/Blade Runner excellent and to the second point it's a maybe.
I'd also throw in what's the odds the sequel is as influential and I think that's unlikely too.
That said Arrival is my favourite recent SF and I've liked everything else he's done that I've seen so I'm expecting a very good film. It's just unlikely that it's going to end up as an influential classic that was misunderstood at release.
Ultimately I think we should give it the spinner test. At release Blade Runner was very expensive and had excellent effects. It had flying cars and yet there wasn't a single action sequence involving them which is actually pretty astonishing. Let's see if Denis manages to get away with not having a chase sequence involving expensive effects.
Inferno313
Banned
I wasn't fully on the Villeneuve train until recently, to be honest. I thought Prisoners was an impeccably made movie, off a pretty lousy, schlocky script. It wasn't until Sicario that I got it, I fucking loved that movie. Arrival was incredible as well. One of my favorites of last year. Now I need to go back and watch Enemy, and his French-language films.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
To split a hair here, the question isn't "do you like him more" the question is "is he a better director."
Like, technically, Michael Bay is a better director than Savage Steve Holland. But I like Better off Dead and One Crazy Summer better than I like Bad Boys and Pain & Gain, yunno? I guess I'm allowing for/assuming people who are trying to apply a more critical/analytical eye to the question than simply a yes/no. Which is why the follow up to the first question had to do with Villeneuve's understanding of WHY the story worked. A better director could make a worse movie if he doesn't have a firm grip on the story he's trying to tell. But if he DOES have that grip...
I'm not even seeing that, though. Maybe I missed it, but I thought C.P. was just floating the idea that he could make a better film than the original. Not that he was saying with any certainty that it was going to happen without a doubt. But just that he was allowing for the possibility. Which is why I chimed in with "yeah, if your answer to these two questions is yeah, it makes sense that you'd be open to that."
You're obviously not open to that, which is fine. I'm not like, judging you for denying or being against the possibility.
Well, bolded feels like now we're kinda stacking the deck here. We're talking about the quality of the film as a film, introducing even more ephemeral notions like "influence" and then handcuffing him by removing options that may or may not make sense for the story being told doesn't seem particularly fair. I dunno. It's not like the presence of a chase scene immediately devalues the story or whatever.
I mean, technically the first movie HAS a couple chase scenes in it. They're just on foot, for the most part. But they're still chase scenes.
Inferno313
Banned
one thing's for sure: I will never be able to spell this director's name without googling it.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I keep fucking it up too.
Chained Prometheus
Member
Yuuuuuuup. That's pretty much how I look at it. It's not a guarantee imo, but I do think it's more of a possibility than most fans probably think it is.
So for Point 1: Is Villeneuve a better director now than Ridley Scott was when he made Blade Runner in 1981/1982?
My thoughts are as such: Villenueve, to date, has not made a film on par with Alien or Blade Runner. However he's also much further into his career as a director than Ridley Scott was when he made Blade Runner- and if nothing else, Villenueve has proven himself to be a far more consistently good director than Ridley has been in the long term. Moreover he recently said that he and Roger Deakins decided to go wild/nuts with the visuals for this film, so there's potentially an extra spark propelling them for this film than there usually is.
On top of that, Villeneuve is also unquestionably a better "actor's director" than Ridley ever was. While Ridley is great at casting, he's kind of notorious for just leaving the actors be while on set and instead focuses more on the shots and visuals (which is totally fine). Villeneuve, on the other hand, gets a fair amount of praise from his cast on helping them with their performances.
tldr; Hard to say. Villeneuve hasn't made an outright classic yet like Ridley had when he made Blade Runner, but he's also gotten more mileage and experience as a high quality filmmaker at this point than Ridley has in the long term.
Point 2: Does Villeneuve understand what made the original Blade Runner work better than Ridley Scott does?
Judging by how relieved most people have been that Villeneuve has repeatedly said that he wants to keep the question of "Is Deckard a human or a replicant?" ambiguous and unanswered, while Ridley has been saying that Deckard decidedly is a replicant for over a decade now, I think this answer is a lot more straight forward- Yes.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Den-NEE Vill-NOOV (I think?)
Might be more like Vih-NOOV, I dunno.
But Den-NEE is right.
So I looked it up and apparently you don't pronounced the V.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yACLC1WyzWE
I had it right besides those V part. I forgot who said it like that and I just thought they were right since it sounded more Frenchy but they also were pronouncing the V.
[edit]
This is assuming Jeremy Renner is correct.
Since it's brought up the visual aspect, both in Alien and Aliens and now Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049.
Using the trailer as the basis, it's not so much the clean versus dirty look. But almost a claustrophobic/crowded look versus a more clear look. There is something about the original Alien look, that the Spacecraft itself has this sense of closeness to it. Lost in Aliens. Like the surroundings themselves are part of the reason why you're trapped with this creature, making it even more scary. Even though it was probably the same size in Aliens, the lightning, architecture, and how it was shot never really capture this same feeling of being in this box with a creature.
It worked in Blade Runner too, where I felt cramped while watching certain scenes when they were in the poorer areas, due to how crowded and much stuff was shoved in a shot. It was very distinct compared to the more upscale areas with a lot of open room. This could very likely change in the final movie, since trailers are shot for a certain atheistic
Just my 2 cents.
Using the trailer as the basis, it's not so much the clean versus dirty look. But almost a claustrophobic/crowded look versus a more clear look. There is something about the original Alien look, that the Spacecraft itself has this sense of closeness to it. Lost in Aliens. Like the surroundings themselves are part of the reason why you're trapped with this creature, making it even more scary. Even though it was probably the same size in Aliens, the lightning, architecture, and how it was shot never really capture this same feeling of being in this box with a creature.
It worked in Blade Runner too, where I felt cramped while watching certain scenes when they were in the poorer areas, due to how crowded and much stuff was shoved in a shot. It was very distinct compared to the more upscale areas with a lot of open room. This could very likely change in the final movie, since trailers are shot for a certain atheistic
Just my 2 cents.
Graphics Horse
Member
Yeah the trailer shows enough Spinner action anyway, Including Deckard's original being blown up by a missile, and some sort of Spinner on Spinner interception but possibly not a chase.
It's less that I'm not open to the movie being better, I just don't see how it's in play. That sort of thing is reserved from when you see the movie, and let it settle in for a bit. No real denial on my part as I guess bewilderment, because we don't know enough and haven't seen enough. I've definitely been more down on the trailer than others in the thread, but I also put an asterisk on my opinions so far as I can only judge it to a point.
As for your later point: Yeah dude, I know. If my posts came off as hostile that wasn't my intention. I tend to not choose my words carefully, add the internet to that and it's a whole new can of worms. Just arguing back my differing opinion is all.
SuperStiltzkin
Member
I think it's unfair to throw in the qualifier of being "influential." It's a sequel to an already influential film and set in the same universe. And this movie is coming out at a time when almost every question regarding robotics and AI has been explored from every angle through film, TV, and videogames. Ex Machina, Westworld, and even Binary Domain (which explored the possibility of human/robot reproduction).
Also the most action I've ever seen from him is in Sicario, which was done in a very grounded and realistic manner with very little bombast for the sake of spectacle. That said, I don't think the inclusion of action automatically lowers it to the level of action schlock.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I think yeah, people jumped on "Dirty" and "Gritty" as descriptors but "crowded" is really what's different. This LA isn't as crowded. It's probably about as dirty maybe? Maybe a little cleaner. But I think Griff pointed out earlier there's a ton of shit in the air. Ridley would make things wet, and smoky, but Denis seems to have made things soupy. The air is literally thick. And it's easier to spot that because there aren't anywhere near as many people in the frame, and with less people, there's less stuff, too. No papers, neon umbrellas, funny hats, weird clothes, etc.
So the question is whether there's a storytelling reason for that.
So the question is whether there's a storytelling reason for that.
SuperStiltzkin
Member
I'm thinking a more toxic atmosphere so people want to spend less time on the streets. Gosling's character has that coat with the big collar that covers his mouth and nose. It looks way smoggier and the city scape looks less bright because the lights have difficulty penetrating the smog.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
You didn't come off hostile at all - just thoughtful/insightful, as per usual. No offense was taken or anything like that.
But I think the possibility of it being better is in play, which is more what C.P. was getting at. And I agree, the possibility is in play. It's hard to gauge how big that possibility is just yet, because like you said, we don't really have shit to go on but a couple commercials and some vague plot descriptions. And even within the commercials, we can't seem to come to a consensus on why the shit looks different. Just that it looks different. So it's not the most solid of bases to stand on and start building hopes/prognostications/what-have-you.
But I think the possibility is there.
To use a film from a completely different genre: I don't know if anyone would have safely called that Creed was going to be as good (I think it's better) than Rocky was. But I think people could have, after the first trailer and looking at Coogler's prior work, suggested that the possibility was on the table. I know I didn't. But someone coulda.
I think that can apply here, too.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Yeah, it was something I was thinking about bringing up back when people were calling that parked spinner shot on the edge of the wasteland "truly terrible" or whatever. Like, maybe there's not really any shadows because where he's standing is so clouded over with red/orange SHIT in the sky and on the ground that the light is so diffused, it just looks surreal and strange and off that you might be trying to explain as bad compositing but is actually just how the shot is lit and photographed.
And then Deakins weighed in on his board and basically said as such, I think.
SirMossyBloke
Member
Only thing I didn't like about the trailer is Harrison Ford seemingly running on the spot. Not sure if it was just the cut of the trailer or the way it was shot, but it looked weird.
riskybusinesstomcruise
Member
It them old ass joints of his. They gotta pump him full of fish oil before these running scenes so things actually look half natural, but then again he is an old man in the movie.
Can you link me to that?
Man with Knife
Member
No, Renner is wrong. So in the clip he makes fun of Villeneuve's accent but can't even pronounce his name right. Comes off as an idiot tbh.
CadetMahoney
Member
Lol I just noticed that, it looked like he was sorta dancing.
Why does the discussion keep circling back to dirt and grit and crowds. Those are all superficial details as Blade Runner would still look like Blade Runner on a clean set with fewer props. The most significant difference is the change in aesthetics over time. Blade Runner LA was a melting pot of "old world" stylings, 80s' fashion, and visions of the future. The structures alone were packed with contrasting textures. Embossed stone next to ornamental metal next to glass and neon. They weren't afraid to flaunt bumps and grooves or striking shapes and patterns.
Lookit this shit.
The city vied for your attention in every scene and the key to that was variety and contrast in texture and design.* Dirt and smoke and civilians only further characterized what was already established.
*
In 2049 most of the contents of that pot are gone. Everything that isn't obscured by shadow and blur is "contemporary," sleek and inoffensive. You focus more on lighting and the few subjects in frame because there isn't much else that piques curiosity, even in a busier shot. Remove the spinner and I wouldn't realize this is a Blade Runner sequel.
I'm not saying this is the wrong direction to head in. It still looks nice and is shot well enough. But the design sense is appearing to be far safer than I anticipated which is a buMMer.
The exterior and lobby of this building is currently the only location that evokes Blade Runner, IMO. Everything else can be mistaken for a typical futuristic sci-fi set.
Lookit this shit.
The city vied for your attention in every scene and the key to that was variety and contrast in texture and design.* Dirt and smoke and civilians only further characterized what was already established.
*
Lighting and composition as well, but I'm focusing on design.
In 2049 most of the contents of that pot are gone. Everything that isn't obscured by shadow and blur is "contemporary," sleek and inoffensive. You focus more on lighting and the few subjects in frame because there isn't much else that piques curiosity, even in a busier shot. Remove the spinner and I wouldn't realize this is a Blade Runner sequel.
I'm not saying this is the wrong direction to head in. It still looks nice and is shot well enough. But the design sense is appearing to be far safer than I anticipated which is a buMMer.
The exterior and lobby of this building is currently the only location that evokes Blade Runner, IMO. Everything else can be mistaken for a typical futuristic sci-fi set.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
Same here...
Was 8 years old when it released, saw trailers back then, and watched the movie when I was 14 back in 1989.
Too much time has passed.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
They don't try or work as hard to make movies like they used to. The people who worked on Blade Runner suffered for their art, they hated working on that movie.
VistraNorrez
Member
Well unless they try too hard, everyone one hates that.
I don't really see the point of doing 1-1 comparisons of set design.
We are 30 years later in that world and have no idea what has happened in that time. I would hope the aesthetic changed and they wouldn't revisit every single thing from the original.
There could be a thematic element going on where they purposefully want to contrast the first film.
Is this even a question? Villeneuve is A FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR better director in 2017 than Ridley Scott was in 1982. It isn't even a fair comparison and I like early Ridley Scott.
I mean Arrival shits all over the original Alien and I love love love Alien. Arrival is the best sci-fi film of the past 25 years. Not to mention his recent track record before that of Sicario, Enemy, and Prisoners were all fantastic.
MarmiteBadger
Member
PSY・S;236461467 said:Why does the discussion keep circling back to dirt and grit and crowds. Those are all superficial details as Blade Runner would still look like Blade Runner on a clean set with fewer props. The most significant difference is the change in aesthetics over time. Blade Runner LA was a melting pot of "old world" stylings, 80s' fashion, and visions of the future. The structures alone were packed with contrasting textures. Embossed stone next to ornamental metal next to glass and neon. They weren't afraid to flaunt bumps and grooves or striking shapes and patterns.
Lookit this shit.
The city vied for your attention in every scene and the key to that was variety and contrast in texture and design.* Dirt and smoke and civilians only further characterized what was already established.
*Lighting and composition as well, but I'm focusing on design.
In 2049 most of the contents of that pot are gone. Everything that isn't obscured by shadow and blur is "contemporary," sleek and inoffensive. You focus more on lighting and the few subjects in frame because there isn't much else that piques curiosity, even in a busier shot. Remove the spinner and I wouldn't realize this is a Blade Runner sequel.
I'm not saying this is the wrong direction to head in. It still looks nice and is shot well enough. But the design sense is appearing to be far safer than I anticipated which is a buMMer.
The exterior and lobby of this building is currently the only location that evokes Blade Runner, IMO. Everything else can be mistaken for a typical futuristic sci-fi set.
While I agree the difference is obvious, I do believe they got the lighting right. Even though from these stills they focused more on the lighting than architectural design. It looks more atmospheric by showing a subtle dystopia while trying to have this futuristic sleekness.
I prefer the first film's design like everyone else because it was different. Everything stood out and somehow it seemed to "click" together. I just hope that 2049 will show more of that along with what is shown in these stills.
You know well that if this movie gets a cult following in Japan there will be a huge revitalization of Akira-like manga and anime.
Nah it's fair. you can't just gnome a film's legacy to try and give another film some easier ride to being "better".
Bobby was talking about possibility the sequel might top the original: to do that it would have to be a better film and have as strong a legacy.
This is why I noted I think odds remain against it. BR has an element in of lightning in a bottle about that will be hard to recapture.
TBH I think they're deliberately going in a different direction realising this. Taking plot strands that could be carried forward and giving it their own look.
But never forget the impact BR had a very time. That legacy was earned and any sequel or SF film wanting to stack up to it has to live up to that too.
In every creative mredium there are peaks and while we all want "our generations" entry to be the best in reality it's not linear and often the best of any given year can't top peak creations from the past and the legacy of such titles carries forward.
Like I said though I expect an excellent film: but a genre defining classic? We'll have to see not just how good the film is but if it shows real signs of being at that level.
TL/DR: you can't wave away a genre defining classics legacy. Any sequel or film in the genre that wants to truly top it has to also prove to be genre defining as well.
What an awful post.
Incredible trailer.
Gentlemen, you had my curiosity... but now you have my hype.
Eh, I think it does. The original was smart, but not /that/ smart.
The shit with Arrival > Alien? Best sc-fi film in the last 25 years? Wow...
Arrival was /ok/, pretty bloody bland and sluggish, not anywhere near as smart as it thought it was, and the twist was a fucking illogical mess (yeh, time stuff tends to be but this didn't sell it at all).
Good-points elevated it above these flaws for me, but it's still an "ok" movie whereas Alien is a genre defining masterpiece.
Gentlemen, you had my curiosity... but now you have my hype.
Eh, I think it does. The original was smart, but not /that/ smart.
The shit with Arrival > Alien? Best sc-fi film in the last 25 years? Wow...
Arrival was /ok/, pretty bloody bland and sluggish, not anywhere near as smart as it thought it was, and the twist was a fucking illogical mess (yeh, time stuff tends to be but this didn't sell it at all).
Good-points elevated it above these flaws for me, but it's still an "ok" movie whereas Alien is a genre defining masterpiece.
Future PhaZe
Member
Can't say my hype hasn't lessened after reading psy's post. It really is a completely different aesthetic. Here's hoping they can make up for that elsewhere.
Pretty much disagree with everything Psy wrote. The aesthetics are utterly nailed here, especially when you consider the original film was restricted in the actual environments and places it showed. This has a lot more variety, and it's simply stuff to add alongside the first not say "it doesn't fit with it".
It all fits, it's extremely clear Villeneuve nailed this aspect entirely. The music, too. Nailed.
The script and tone seems the same, too. Leto's delivery of the few lines we've seen are incredibly in keeping with the tone of the first film, for example, and the costume design and just the overall feel is spot on.
Peoples are mad suggesting otherwise, imo.