Support NeoGAF

[Ran rp]

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.

I'm comparing the approach to setting the world apart from others in the genre and giving visual examples. I'm not asking for them to recreate Blade Runner. I'm saying if you're going to change the cool apple into a orange I hope you try to make the orange as appealing as the apple regardless of approach. A contemporary, smoothed out Blade Runner can work but I don't feel that 2049 is that much more an appealing fruit than other sci-fi works.

What I'm hoping for now is for lighting to play a much more active role this time. The Elvis bit in the club and the shootout and flood around the spinner in the dark were nice. Give me more of that.

I also love the use of foliage in this shot.

 

[Rixxan]

I appreciate the analysis and agree to an extent, but i'm not sure cherry picking stills from the original and contrasting them against what's offered in this 2 min trailer is necessarily fair in terms of passing a final judgement on the aesthetic of 2049

also when you consider that with this trailer they will obviously be trying to drive some interest in the masses of people not blade runner enthusiasts

 

[Ran rp]

Oi. Please pay attention to my wording. I'm not making any sort of final judgement. I'm aware that this is just a glimpse into the world and that it's still early. These are only my current thoughts on what's been shown.

 

[VistraNorrez]

I'm comparing the approach to setting the world apart from others in the genre and giving visual examples. I'm not asking for them to recreate Blade Runner. I'm saying if you're going to change the cool apple into a orange I hope you try to make the orange as appealing as the apple regardless of approach. A contemporary, smoothed out Blade Runner can work but I don't feel that 2049 is that much more an appealing fruit than other sci-fi works.

What I'm hoping for now is for lighting to play a much more active role this time. The Elvis bit in the club and the shootout and flood around the spinner in the dark were nice. Give me more of that.

I also love the use of foliage in this shot.

Its a sequel we've seen 3 minutes of. Not sure why you would expect it to set itself apart from others in the genre. It by definition cannot be as revolutionary as the original. It has to first and foremost react to the original, not the other sci-fi films. And it can't just repeat the original either. I'm sure they discussed the design considering how important it was to the original.

I have no idea of the philosophy of the evolution of design within the BR universe. The original was about retrofitting. So you have the ornate elements because it's a combo of old and new. I don't know if that's a design philosophy 30 years later. My speculation is that it is not. Much like Times Square, and NYC in general, was cleaned up since the 70s, the LA of 2049 may have seen a similar attempt. Even if that's just rich people dumping money into new buildings.

I don't know what happened to the Tyrell Corp. but it appears Leto's character took it over. And it would make sense his design sense would be different.

Whatever the case, I have no problem identifying this trailer as taking place in the future of the world from the first film.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

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.

I still think this is unfair, and often untrue. Again: Creed didn't define the sports movie genre but it's a better film than Rocky. Fury Road didn't define the action genre, but it's a better film than Road Warrior.

You're making a pretty good argument for the metric, I just don't think the metric itself is fair in its application. Especially once you remove it from the context of sequels/series. There are lots of dramas that share similarities (plot/storywise) with other dramas, and some of those dramas are absolutely better than the more popular ones. I mean, to somewhat unfairly cherry pick: Would you say that Carlito's Way isn't a better film than Scarface? Because it's inarguable Scarface enjoys more status as "genre defining," but it's also somewhat obvious to me that it's an overindulgent, overlong, mostly shitty movie.

Blade Runner 2049 could be a better film than Blade Runner without needing to change the game as strongly as Blade Runner did.

To use the go-to: I don't think you could argue that Empire changed the fantasy game more than Star Wars did, at least not in the generalized way almost everyone in the industry and everyone outside of it tends to think of Star Wars' impact. But most people tend to consider Empire a better film.

So I don't think a film has to not only be a better made film with a better told story but also make a bigger splash in the zeitgeist before you can call it "a better film."

I think it just has to be a better film.

They don't try or work as hard to make movies like they used to.

What

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

What

Have you seen the documentary about the making of Blade Runner or read about it's production?

 

[Inferno313]

Have you seen the documentary about the making of Blade Runner or read about it's production?

What does that have to do with how they make movies nowadays?

 

[Fallout-NL]

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.

Agreed. The sequel appears to have not nearly as much texture as the original.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Have you seen the documentary about the making of Blade Runner or read about it's production?

That's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking about the generalization you made regarding people not working hard on movies anymore.

I'm unsure how you could have actually come to that conclusion.

(and yeah, I'm very familiar with the making of the original film)

 

[Fancy Clown]

Have you seen the documentary about the making of Blade Runner or read about it's production?

Are you saying that movies don't have lengthy, troubled productions that have on set tensions and creative solutions that result in a fantastic movie with artistry evident in all respects anymore? Because Fury Road came out only 2 years ago dude.

 

[Ran rp]

Have you seen the documentary about the making of Blade Runner or read about it's production?

I'd say priorities have changed, not that they don't work as hard.

Its a sequel we've seen 3 minutes of. Not sure why you would expect it to set itself apart from others in the genre. It by definition cannot be as revolutionary as the original. It has to first and foremost react to the original, not the other sci-fi films. And it can't just repeat the original either. I'm sure they discussed the design considering how important it was to the original.

Oi.

 

[Inferno313]

Are you saying that movies don't have lengthy, troubled productions that have on set tensions and creative solutions that result in a fantastic movie with artistry evident in all respects anymore? Because Fury Road came out only 2 years ago dude.

"they just use computers now"

 

[Bobby Roberts]

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.

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.

It probably circles back around to that stuff because "dirt/grit/crowds" is how people are trying to quantify the texture you're discussing. At the end there you even admit that those things are part of the texture you're pointing out. Visual noise. Detritus. Details. Shit in the frame.

It's been 30 in-universe years and the place is emptier than it was, and designs have changed. That makes sense, I think. Hopefully the storytelling will make it make even more sense. Will that change the initial aesthetic reaction to the design choice? Probably not, no. At best, it can only help contextualize it.

 

[Bronx-Man]

one thing's for sure: I will never be able to spell this director's name without googling it.

I keep fucking it up too.

Bobby, weren't you the one that was always on my ass for misspelling the rogue in Rogue One?

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

That's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking about the generalization you made regarding people not working hard on movies anymore.

I'm unsure how you could have actually come to that conclusion.

(and yeah, I'm very familiar with the making of the original film)

Not to the degree they did back then. Imagine a production crew today breathing thick smoke and dealing with various other miserable conditions on set all day. That doesn't happen. Practical effects are an entirely different beast, requiring a lot of engineering time spent in those miserable set conditions that is not applicable today.

 

[TheWrathOfSean]

LOL.

I forget that not everybody uses the same jargon, so I guess I should explain a bit.

Simple explanation of what it means when someone who works in production says elements of a composition look stiff: When elements look so rigid that they're not even bearing their own weight, such as cg set pieces with no sag to them, for instance.

It doesn't jump out to everyone, but when you've worked in a production environment for 13 plus years, you notice stuff like this.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Not to the degree they did back then. Imagine a production crew today breathing thick smoke and dealing with various other miserable conditions on set all day. That doesn't happen.

I'm almost 100% sure you're basing this assumption on not much
I'm definitely sure you're wrong.

Simple explanation of what it means when someone who works in production says elements of a composition look stiff: When elements look so rigid that they're not even bearing their own weight, such as cg set pieces with no sag to them, for instance.

It doesn't jump out to everyone, but when you've worked in a production environment for 13 plus years, you notice stuff like this.

When it turns out they actually built a rooftop set and photographed it...

 

[Fancy Clown]

Not to the degree they did back then. Imagine a production crew today breathing thick smoke and dealing with various other miserable conditions on set all day. That doesn't happen. Practical effects are an entirely different beast, requiring a lot of engineering time spent in those miserable set conditions that is not applicable today.

Again, Fury Road. And of course that ain't even the only recent example. Remember all the whoopla about conditions on The Revenant shoot?

 

[TheWrathOfSean]

When it turns out they actually built a rooftop set and photographed it...

Hah, then I'll be wrong. Doesn't look lived in enough for me. Just my main gripe with some of the stuff that's shown.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I'm almost 100% sure you're basing this assumption on not much
I'm definitely sure you're wrong.

Consider that unions have improved and better protect members from scenarios like the Blade Runner production, or that digital effects eliminate the need for many engineering feats to create a visual effect. It's just the nature of where we're at compared to then.

Now, maybe saying they don't work as hard today isn't the best way to put it, but I believe that a lot of the look that made Blade Runner such a visually influential film is due to the challenges and incredible effort of the production crew working in insane conditions as much as it was the vision of the filmmakers.

Again, Fury Road. And of course that ain't even the only recent example. Remember all the whoopla about conditions on The Revenant shoot?

That's fair, but overall we're in a different place today in terms of on set conditions and what is required of engineers and artists to overcome them. Technology alone should be enough evidence- we have more technology that makes things easier.

 

[Fancy Clown]

That's fair, but overall we're in a different place today in terms of on set conditions and what is required of engineers and artists to overcome them. Technology alone should be enough evidence- we have more technology that makes things easier.

Sure, but you still had people busting their asses in the desert for long hours strapped to insane mechanical contraptions that were speeding around. Like it's not like they were saying "all this technology sure makes it so much easier". They're still in a fuckin desert, doing dangerous things, sweating and gettin sand in their eyes and heat stroke.

But then, I'm not sure what quantifying how hard the people on the production worked has to do with the end result of the film anyway, since difficult productions rarely are correlated to any sort of quality in either direction. Blade Runner would have looked just as good if the grips weren't choking on smoke cuz they all got respirators on set.

 

[VistraNorrez]

Oi.

I also mentioned the retrofitting in my post and how they may not be using that design philosophy in 2049.

But please clip my post and add a non-sequitur. It will surely make your argument stronger.

 

[Ran rp]

I also mentioned the retrofitting in my post and how they may not be using that design philosophy in 2049.

But please clip my post and add a non-sequitur. It will surely make your argument stronger.

1st paragraph: Reread my two posts above yours. Nowhere am I asking for a game changer or repeat of Blade Runner. Appeal =/= influence.

2nd/3rd: I already discussed that and I don't disagree. What's the problem?

4: I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion on that, so I didn't quote it.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Sure, but you still had people busting their asses in the desert for long hours strapped to insane mechanical contraptions that were speeding around. Like it's not like they were saying "all this technology sure makes it so much easier". They're still in a fuckin desert, doing dangerous things, sweating and gettin sand in their eyes and heat stroke.

But then, I'm not sure what quantifying how hard the people on the production worked has to do with the end result of the film anyway, since difficult productions rarely are correlated to any sort of quality in either direction. Blade Runner would have looked just as good if the grips weren't choking on smoke cuz they all got respirators on set.

But Fury Road didn't have futurists and visionaries setting the bar for a visual design that would define an entire genre of sci fi and set the palette for what we now use as a baseline for what we think of when we think of cyberpunk. It was drawing from an already defined palette. I don't want to say that difficult filmmaking doesn't still happen or that movies like Fury Road aren't still challenging films to make in their own right.

Blade Runner certainly would not have looked just as good without the creative solutions that engineers and artists had to come up with to achieve what the visionaries demanded, lacking much of the technology we have today. Can the director of this film even get away with the demands that Scott put on his crew? I would imagine they would all quit, or the unions would step in.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

But Fury Road didn't have futurists and visionaries setting the bar for a visual design that would define an entire genre of sci fi and set the palette for what we now use as a baseline for what we think of when we think of cyberpunk. It was drawing from an already defined palette. I don't want to say that difficult filmmaking doesn't still happen or that movies like Fury Road aren't still challenging films to make in their own right.

This is almost exactly what you were saying in the initial post that had everyone going "what the hell are you talking about" upthread.

You're basically arguing that Blade Runner looks the way it did because human beings physically suffered while making it, and movies can't have that sort of impact on audiences anymore because labor laws prevent film crews from being put in those sorts of unhealthy situations.

1) That's a bad argument
2) It ignores how hard people still work on films to bring them to life.

Whether or not the resultant film "set the baseline for cyberpunk" or not doesn't really have much to do with what you were originally saying. Like Clown pointed out: It still would have set the baseline if the people behind the scenes were wearing respirators and got more frequent lunch breaks, yunno?

It's a false connection you're trying to draw, and automatically diminishing newer movies, the passion that goes into making them, and the results of that hard work because unions make it harder to run employees into the dirt in pursuit of artistic excellence isn't a great stance.

(I understand that ethos is, however, still status quo and even celebrated over in the gaming industry)

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

Again, why does 2049 need to be visually influential? It's a sequel to an already visually influential film. It needs to look like a natural evolution of the universe it is set in. Should it have completely alien looking sets and art design just for the sake of looking different and in hopes of being influential?

Also the idea that more suffering leads to better quality is some super villain logic. That movie where people fucked around with real life lions isn't a good movie. It's a hell of a spectacle, but the quality is on the low end. Would it matter if some background smoke was CGI or not if you couldn't tell the difference?

 

[Ran rp]

.... oi?

edit: maybe I should add I'm speaking as an artist and don't care much for most depictions of futuristic sci-fi. Blade Runner is one of the few standouts for me.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

This is almost exactly what you were saying in the initial post that had everyone going "what the hell are you talking about" upthread.

You're basically arguing that Blade Runner looks the way it did because human beings physically suffered while making it, and movies can't have that sort of impact on audiences anymore because labor laws prevent film crews from being put in those sorts of unhealthy situations.

1) That's a bad argument
2) It ignores how hard people still work on films to bring them to life.

Whether or not the resultant film "set the baseline for cyberpunk" or not doesn't really have much to do with what you were originally saying. Like Clown pointed out: It still would have set the baseline if the people behind the scenes were wearing respirators and got more frequent lunch breaks, yunno?

It's a false connection you're trying to draw, and automatically diminishing newer movies, the passion that goes into making them, and the results of that hard work because unions make it harder to run employees into the dirt in pursuit of artistic excellence isn't a great stance.

(I understand that ethos is, however, still status quo and even celebrated over in the gaming industry)

There's a reason why a Blade Runner movie in 2017 can't match the one made in 1982 or whatever year that was. You can say it's a choice, but it isn't. Things were harder then, there were no shortcuts or easier ways to do something. You were in the shit, with an asshole like Ridley Scott making your life miserable while trying to engineer practical effects to make a futurist's designs look real. While barely being able to breathe and wanting to flee the production.

You can argue that those conditions weren't a significant factor in how amazing that movie ended up. But take the Star Wars prequels as a perfect opposite example-George Lucas comfortable in his chair, actors pretending to know what's around them in an empty room, but still lots of talented artists and engineers just like who worked on Blade Runner.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

OK wolfgunblood.

I pretty obviously disagree but you've pretty clearly clarified your point - for you, the physical suffering of Ridley Scott's employees is a huge reason why the film looks the way it does.

This thread is a wild one.

 

[Chained Prometheus]

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.

Well, a man died while deconstructing one of the sets of 2049 last year, if you want to talk about suffering. :/

I'm sure others have already grilled you a bit on the wording there and I think I get the actual point you're trying to make, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that the crew of 2049 didn't pour their sweat, blood and tears into the project.

 

[Einchy]

I wonder how many people died to make this gorgeous suit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcBMnlPte9Y

 

[fastford58]

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.

No...it is different. Like an uncanny valley version of the original. It looks close, but something just ticks in the back of my brain like something is just off.

Psy's post is close to how I feel, but even then there is something off about the new one I can't quite put my finger on.

Will watch, of course. Though I am not afraid to admit that I strongly feel that a sequel was wholly unnecessary....like ever.

 

[Deleted member 102362]

This thread is a wild one.

Do trailer threads normally do this? I watched the trailer and it has me stoked for the movie. The visuals look fucking phenomenal - like, that alone is reason enough for me to see it. Besides the part where Blade Runner is my all-time favorite movie, of course.

I guess this thread's a sign that BR fans are still a passionate, dedicated bunch. Fuck yeah!

 

[Fjordson]

I am stoked as well.

They at least nailed the rainy city look so I'm happy.

 

[Chained Prometheus]

I am stoked as well.

They at least nailed the rainy city look so I'm happy.

That's one of my favorite shots from the trailer. My other personal faves are these:

There's a real Kubrick and Tarkovsky influence going on with the framing of a lot of these shots, especially the ones in the Tyrell Corp-esque pyramid location, and I love it. While I know some folks prefer how the original looks, I really appreciate that Villeneuve is trying for a different approach.

Speaking of the film's visual identity, apparently he did a small interview about it with Nerdist the other day...

 

[Fancy Clown]

Whoa, yeah that top shot looks straight out of The Sacrifice

 

[Chained Prometheus]

Whoa, yeah that top shot looks straight out of The Sacrifice

Yup! And some folks mentioned back in December when the Announcement Trailer came out how some of those shots with K in the desert are eerily reminiscent of Tarkovsky's Stalker too.

 

[Ran rp]

Is this a direct capture from the film? 'Cause it gets me like none of these 2049 shots and I probably need to watch it.

 

[Fancy Clown]

Is this a direct capture from the film? 'Cause it gets me like none of these 2049 shots and I probably need to watch it.

Yeah, it's from the artificial eye bluray release. It's an awesome movie, highly recommend it although it's probably not the most accessible Tarkovsky.

 

[Chained Prometheus]

Is this a direct capture from the film? 'Cause it gets me like none of these 2049 shots and I probably need to watch it.

That's Sven Nykvist for ya. Same dude who shot all of Ingmar Bergman's masterpieces from the early 1960s onward, including films such as Persona, Winter Light, Hour of the Wolf and Cries & Whispers.

 

[Ran rp]

Yeah, it's from the artificial eye bluray release. It's an awesome movie, highly recommend it although it's probably not the most accessible Tarkovsky.

Who cares about accessibility? Sold!

That's Sven Nykvist for ya. Same dude who shot all of Ingmar Bergman's masterpieces from the early 1960s onward, including films such as Persona, Winter Light, Hour of the Wolf and Cries & Whispers.

I know who I'm checking out next Criterion sale.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Who cares about accessibility?

Yup.

It's a Blade Runner thread

 

[Anton Sugar]

Huh. Blade Runner is sometimes critiqued as too slow/boring and unclear. Maybe not to the level of Tarkovsky's more abstract stuff, but yeah, there could be some crossover.

The Sacrifice is one of my favs. Great eye pointing that house shot out. Tarkovsky is like the patron saint of cinematic burning houses.

 

[Fancy Clown]

The Sacrifice makes Blade Runner seem like Star Wars in comparison. I'm all for diving in at the deep end though!

 

[Anton Sugar]

Ha, interesting. Decided to snoop a little on Deakins' thoughts on Tarkovsky.

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/film-talk/andrei-tarkovsky-and-vadim-yusov/

[Ivan's Childhood] is probably my favorite film of Tarkovsky and anyone else, for that matter, that and 'Solaris'. I never really studied the cinematography of 'Solaris' until I was watching it again the other day. It is so perfect for that film. Cinematography isn't about beautiful images but about 'telling' images and the cinematography in 'Solaris' is that to perfection.

'Mirror' shot by Georgi Rerberg was pretty superb as well.

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/composition/films-that-is-shot-handheld/

I was watching 'Solaris' again last week and am re visiting 'Andrei Rubelov' today. For me, both put the films we celebrate today in the shade.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005683/bio

I certainly think there is an obsession with technical abilities at the expense of creativity and substance. (...) Cinematographers such as Oswald Morris and Conrad Hall had great technique, but they were not technicians. Their knowledge was used as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. I was watching Tarkovsky's Solaris (1972) the other day. Certainly in Hollywood terms, you might not say that film was 'beautifully shot.' The cinematography garnered no nominations. But Vadim Yusov's work is actually stunning - maybe not 'beautiful' but stunning. [2016]

I don't have any doubt they're shooting it a way that suits what the film is and not what Blade Runner was. It's okay to not like that aesthetic as much.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

That's good shit.

Not just the fact Deakins is on his board dispensing wisdom all day, but that you dug up the specific wisdom, based on a tangent, that applies directly to one of the more contentious aspects of this trailer.

I love it.

 

[Fancy Clown]

Deakins is a national treasure. It's a crime he's never won an Oscar.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

Huh, I never noticed that.

I did, and the gratuitous Coca Cola shots. Lol

 

[Chained Prometheus]

That's good shit.

Not just the fact Deakins is on his board dispensing wisdom all day, but that you dug up the specific wisdom, based on a tangent, that applies directly to one of the more contentious aspects of this trailer.

I love it.

I'll need to do some more digging later, when I'm not at an airport waiting for my next flight, but I'm pretty sure Tarkovsky is also a huge influence on Villeneuve himself too. I'll try to look up some quotes on that when I'm all situated later tonight.

I do know for a fact that Villeneuve has stated on multiple occasions that his absolute favorite film of all time is Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey- which is something also worth keeping in mind when considering the trailer footage of BR2049 and also that Villeneuve apparently mentally sees the true title of the film only being "2049" and not "Blade Runner 2049."

 

[Ran rp]

Solaris is the only Tarkovsky I've seen and I'd absolutely say it was beautifully shot. It was one of the first films to open my eyes to the subtleties of the motion photography aspect of cinematography. Not just the movement of the camera/actors and sequencing of shots but all the smaller motions and how they assist storytelling. That's why my light criticism of 2049 fixates on design and why I'm hoping lighting plays a bigger role.

I made this gif the other day because it's another example of what I'm looking for. Taking advantage of minimal set dressing to play around with caustics.

As I've said before, I still haven't seen a Villeneuve film (or any recent Deakins work) so ionno what to expect. Cautiously optimistic.

Thanks for the quotes, Anton.