Based on what critera?
He trusts the filmmakers because unlike most people here he is aware that they have brains and that they use them. Wake up, simpleton.
Based on what critera?
PSY・S;236354016 said:He trusts the filmmakers because unlike most people here he is aware that they have brains and that they use them. Wake up, simpleton.
That's how I feel. Gosling fits with this I think.Lmao. I find stoic Gosling performances to be boring as hell but honestly he's a great fit for this considering how Deckard was in the original and the vibe of the movie
A moody sci fi noir, they picked the right guy for it
Lmao. I find stoic Gosling performances to be boring as hell but honestly he's a great fit for this considering how Deckard was in the original and the vibe of the movie
A moody sci fi noir, they picked the right guy for it
What does that even mean? It's a still picture.
Is that Katy Perry?
Is that Katy Perry?
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.
Those questions don't have any bearing on anything aside from hype levels.
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 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.
Dennis Villeneuve is a good director, liking him more than Ridley Scott means you might like the movie more, sure.
All I'm seeing is people who really, really love Villeneuve saying it'll definitely be a better movie
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.
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 did—it 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.
I still don't know how to pronounce his name, I've seen people say it a million different ways.
Den-NEE Vill-NOOV (I think?)
Might be more like Vih-NOOV, I dunno.
But Den-NEE is right.
To
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.
You're obviously not open to that, which is fine. I'm not like, judging you for denying or being against the possibility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't like 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.
My brain has had too many years to gestate the original and now everything looks slightly different from what I imagined, consequently it feels off putting through no fault of the movie itself. Is there a word for that?
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.
I
Is Denis Villeneuve a better director at this point in his career than Ridley Scott was at the point he made Blade Runner? .
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.
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".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.
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.
Doesn't look anywhere as cerebral as the original. Dunno, not feeling it.
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.
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.