It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I agree that it seems a tad too familiar in that montage, but then again if I hadn't seen that, I wouldn't have noticed all the similarities.
A back to back home video viewing likely won't go down all that well unless the plots are very different.
The visual comparisons in @Milovy's post tend to invite some scepticism, though I must admit that Deakens is on my short list of cinematographers in whom I confide almost unconditionally.
As stated before, the ultimate exercise for the filmmakers is to resemble the original but not too much, to keep things within the spirit of the original but not without bringing something new too. And we, as BR geeks, can be a difficult lot. Maybe we should accept it as a foregone conclusion that we will either be this film's most avid supporters, or its most vocal haters. If I were in Villeneuve's shoes, I'd most likely hope that those who, like me, worship at the altar of BR, watch the film only when they're having a good day. ;-)
I agree, the answer is "no" for me as well. Artistically, visually, musically, Blade Runner was always going to be a towering pinnacle of excellence that any sequel, prequel, remake could only hope on a wish and a prayer to live up to a tenth of. 2049 is really going to have to do something special in the story department to justify its existence. That said, I very much so agree that this shot-for-shot mimicry (which I'm sure will not be the totality of the film) was not their best move. I'd like to see something set in the same world and with the same feel, but not the same film. If I want Blade Runner I will watch Blade Runner, not 2049. Hoping the film proves to be its own beast.
It seems like even more of a shame to repeat shots when the original was so innovative. Man, if there's any place to shoot for innovation, where you can feel safe exploring new territory, it's the world of Blade Runner. This isn't the Highlander or Alien franchise - it shouldn't just be reheated leftovers.
If you ask me, I wouldn´t be fascinated by the original BR if the acting, the story and the storytelling weren´t as compelling as the visuals. So I completely agree that I wouldn´t want to judge BR2049 before I´ve seen it a number of times.
I´m really surprised by how many people seem to know the original BR trailer by heart, that they can be bothered by the resemblance of the new one. I mean, we´re talking about a) a 30-year-old trailer, and b) a trailer which in both cases doesn´t give away the story at all. What I get from the new railer is that over the last 30 years a lot of fog seems to have been accumulated over L.A.. Whether that´s a cheap disguise for bad visual style, or it will contribute to the overall ambience of the film, we will only see in the complete product.
My thoughts exactly. Villeneuve is known very much for his storytelling, not for 80s Scott visual extravaganzas. Noone who saw Villeneuves previous films I think would seriously expect him to all of a sudden completely drop his strengths and go into a completely new direction for him. That´s certainly not what they contracted him for.
Good point.
Har har. I compared a handful of incredibly iconic images, not the whole trailer. And no complaining about the excessive fog! You don't know that it's a cheap disguise for bad visual style. Maybe they will have a very good story-related reason for the fog. No premature judging!
Lol, I don't know the original trailer by heart. I'm not comparing the new trailer to the old trailer anyway, nor am I drawing story-based comparisons. So little has been revealed about 2049's story anything in that regard would be pure speculation.
I'm talking about shot composition. The framing of images. There appear to be a good number of identically or near identically recreated shots from the original Blade Runner (the film, not the trailer, although it doesn't really matter which). Recreations along the lines of Van Sant's carbon-copied Psycho. I've conceded that this surely will not be the case for the totality of the film. Nonetheless, I don't need a sequel to be repeating exact shot composition from the original. What's it for? What's the point? Apart from nostalgia, which is about the dumbest and most marketing-friendly reason possible. Did Aliens repeat shot composition from Alien to hark back to the good old times and let you know you're watching an Alien film? How about The Lost World and Jurassic Park? The Dark Knight and Batman Begins? Dawn of the Dead and Night of the Living Dead? Just refer back to the original where you need to and get on with telling the new story. Any referencing should not happen at the level of shot composition—or if it does, it should be intelligently and sparingly deployed. Repeating shot composition actually draws attention to the artificiality of the film. It's a technique that could be put to good use. But it certainly appears overdone in the trailer and the vibe I'm getting is that it's nostalgia-driven rather than storytelling- or art-driven.
The same is true for the remake of Stephen King's "It"; the two trailers are almost identical.
Featurette with about 4 min of new footage. Near the end there´s kind of a minor spoiler I believe, shortly after Ford says, "Who´d you bring?"
By now I don´t care anymore if or how much BR2049 will copy or rip from BR. This looks just too ridiculously good.
I would've just liked to see other stories from that compelling world, because we never got to see the off-world riots led by the replicants, or all the ways that they were used as slaves to society. Because we don't get a good enough sense of this it's hard to get behind Roy and his crew, and I think the original needed more world building of that kind to make me care.
I guess that because the movie originally was such an all around failure the promise of sequels was down the can, and so the ideas left behind in the first film were unable to be explored any longer with such a dead brand. A shame, as I think it's too late to go back now. Of course, maybe the culture of the day (and the interests of audiences) are more ready for a Blade Runner type world? It's hard to tell, but I still don't see it being a financial juggernaut, and with just the chance to impress critically.
As for Blade Runner: 2049, I can't say I'm interested by the idea and nothing from the trailer really grips me. It's also a shame to see a practically made movie get a sequel that could overindulge in too many computer effects, since the original is probably the best example of non-computer effects you could ever find.
I am at least interested to see how the movie will explain what has happened in the many decades since the original, especially since the same writer is returning, like...
*Deckard must certainly not be a replicant, because he wouldn't be around in this world if he was. This has always been an illogical theory from the original that makes no sense no matter how much Ridley wants it to, but would the writers really be able to overwrite the "creator" of the film to craft a story that goes against his final cut revelation? I personally hope so, as I'm in the "Deckard isn't a replicant" camp, not only for what doesn't add up if it's true, but also because him being human is more interesting to me and more in touch with the noir genre it endlessly homages. As Harrison says, we needed a human to connect to in that world, and it should be Deckard.
*I do like the idea of Gosling's character being a fresh Blade Runner seeking out the legendary old one. I have to be honest though, because when Deckard tells the guy that he used to be good when they first meet, I can't help but chuckle. He seemed like the worst detective and/or tough guy ever in the original, and so I can't credibly believe that he could still be around for so long. I'm sure the new film will amp up the action in the film to compensate for why some don't like the original (which was mis-marketed as an action/sci-fi movie to be fair). I just worry that it'll take over the lore, which is why I want to see it. I hope that at the very least we get to see Deckard kick some ass this time, to show that he can actually do the job he was lauded for, but that we never got to see proven.
*I want the film to actually have substantial thematic content, regarding ideas about time, mortality, choice and all the rest, that the original only brushed the top of. I know it's sometimes referred to as a dazzling intellectual wonder of thematic storytelling, but I feel the execution was very uneven and at times empty, and I want this movie to build on what the original started by having more powerful messages.
I wouldn't say loathe, just shocked that it got/gets so much praise. I'll have a give and take relationship with Blade Runner, returning to it now and again to see if there's a spark that can grow into a bigger flame there. It helps that there's about fifty-thousand different cuts, so I've yet to have the full experience.
I recently somehow managed to decide for myself, at least preliminarily, between the theatrical and director´s cut version of Alien. Aliens I´m still not decided on, but that´s not such a big problem, because they´re so different essentially that maybe I can go with both off them.
I guess I just mean context, to make the characters feel like more than blank slates, which was my issue with the film when I saw it.
I agree on that, for sure. Now that my head has cooled I don't view it as critically as I initially did, where I just had shock at what I saw. At this point I'm more ready to get back into it and see if there's more I can appreciate beyond the visuals and Rutger.