Blade Runner 2049 trailer and a first look at Roger Deakins' cinematography

[Andrew Reid]

For me this is the most anticipated film of the year. I have mixed feelings about the trailer but beyond any doubt is that Roger Deakins has done an incredible job.

Read the full article

[jonpais]

Too soon to view on front page? ?

[Sage]

Denis Villeneuve!

[Andrew Reid]

My thoughts are on the front page now.

It's a mixed bag for me!

[Fatalfury]

I think it looks eerily similar to the new Ghost in the Shell film, very pretty indeed but too sterile and glossy. Doesn't feature the depth of the original, same thing with Alien: Covenant. The music on the first half is good (because it's a version of the original Vangelis soundtrack, though not as good), the rest of it sounds cheap imo, standard modern action trailer background music that has no place in BR universe. I thought they would go the extra mile with this, currently it does not look very promising.

[Kisaha]

"Arrival" was so mediocre, really believed in Villeneuve, really disappointed.

I still remember watching a different cut of "Blade Runner" on VHS tape someone send from England when I was a teenager. It was huge for us back then. I am not expecting the same chills and thrills, but not because I am older now, because the writing isn't there (or here) anymore.

Giorgos Lanthimos the "Dogtooth" and "Lobster" Greek director was a famous advertising and video clip director here, serving the mainstream, I do not even remember one TV spot or video clip of his that I liked. His films though were something else, well, the key was Efthymis Filippou, his screen writer.

What I am saying, the main issue is the script, we are lacking good scripts, and in general, younger generations send emoticons or videos, not words.

In our pursuit of visuals we forgot to write, read and listen.

P.S oh, by the way, how disappointed people are from the new Star Trek franchise?

[BrooklynDan]

I patently disagree with many of your observations. Ridley Scott and Jordan Cronenweth did amazing, iconic work with the original. It is now Villeneuve's and Deakins' turn and they should do what feels right to them. I actually find it somewhat refreshing that Deakins shoots on 'plain, old lenses' as you put it. He actually prefers Master Primes, which are the top of the pile as far as spherical photography is concerned, I'm getting tired of reading ASC articles where the DP goes on and on about whatever custom lenses they had Panavision make. From day one, it was pretty obvious that Deakins wasn't gonna shoot anamorphic. And that's fine with me. He makes his mark with lighting and framing, which matters far more than any funky lens flare or aberration.

And I'm actually very happy that the director chose to build off of the world depicted in the original instead of trying to create a whole new speculative future. This is not thirty years into our future, but thirty years further into Blade Runner's future. Yeah, the logos and signs are omnipresent. Just like they were in the original. Just like they are in our world now. The references to the Soviet Union might be clunky, but considering what's happening in global politics today, they might be more timely than ever.

I would probably reserve any final judgments of the screenplay until we see the finished product. Because a couple of lines taken out of context and edited into a trailer probably don't communicate what the final movie will sound like. Of course at first glance it pales next to the original. That dialogue has been drilled into our collective cinematic subconscious.

Finally, the big problem with modern filmmaking isn't that too many directors are trying to make a masterpiece. It's that too few are trying. Making a film overly serious does not mean one is aiming to make a masterpiece. Most big budget films these days are quite homogeneous, mostly designed by committee (looking at you, Marvel), arrive with a ton of build-up so that they can take your money opening weekend, but vanish from consciousness within a few hours after you've seen them. Most have sloppy, underwritten screenplays credited to multiple hacks. Few are actually memorable or contain any real thematic or philosophical depth.

Blade Runner 2049 looks like it might actually have the talent behind it to stand next to the original. I'm incredibly excited for it, more than even the next Star Wars film.

[HelsinkiZim]

Lets look at theme - Blade Runner got us feeling because the droids were relatable and not totally alien. 

Ex Machina tackled this theme beautifully. Prometheus did too. So did 2001, which probably inspired them all. 

Scott has to transcend the drone as relatable (but ultimately ruthless) genre before he gets my attenion. The AI as thriller genre lost its bubble since the abstract 'ghost in the machine' film Her. Which I see as peak.

Someone needs to reinvent it.

Speaking of douches (damn auto type!) in machines, I loved Johansson in, yea, Ghost in a Shell. Remineded me of The Departed (remake). Dunno why....

[Orangenz]

Beautiful visuals but the rest doesn't click for me, mostly due to the robot, I mean Gosling. Could be a computer generated actor. Really quite disappointed in the trailer. Is the story title Search for Han?

[Jimmy]

6 hours ago, Fatalfury said:

I think it looks eerily similar to the new Ghost in the Shell film, very pretty indeed but too sterile and glossy. 

I thought the opposite.... This looks an organic and gritty vision of a technology driven future.

Ghost in the shell was so clean and pristine that it looked like a computer game in the big city shots.

[Ivanhurba]

7 hours ago, Kisaha said:

"Arrival" was so mediocre, really believed in Villeneuve, really disappointed.

 

I saw Arrival with the idea of a small independent film with a big budget. No disappointment for me on that side, but the highlight of the year for me in a similar tone for me was Midnight special, nothing pretentious there and almost out of the greedy studio hands.

Agreed with Andrew on the eye shot; nothing to express with it, no reason to be there right now.

Ridley came from the ad world too but the control of the studio now is much heavier than back in the 80's. They want action for the short span memory generation and grandiose dialogue for the original fans but it looks they forgot the subtext, or poetry as Andrew describes it. I have the feeling they think too much subtext and the audience won't get it which would mean poor box office. They're trying too hard to be a blockbuster when, again, they should have gone midnight special with it, but it would be too risky for a high value property like blade runner. Let's hope for the best.

[Christina Ava]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ

Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film

What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins.

How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film.

Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality.

The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real!

Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted..

my humble opinion..

[Juxx989]

Ive heard that Riley Scott planning to combine alien and blade runner into the same universe. if that's the case 2049 is 44 years before the launch of Prometheus (2093 which is the earliest event in alien universe) its kinda crazy to think that if Ripley got back to earth at the start of Aliens(1986) it would have been blade runner 2181... may be something great could come of this (or crappy)

[DmitriZigany]

Trailer has me alternating between "Wow!" and "No!" (or at least "meh!").

Biggest worries for me are Denis Villeneuve and Roger Deakins. Haven't seen anything by either of them that really impressed me. Deakins is a great technician, but he's not an artist. Maybe he can pull it off as there's a clear blueprint to follow with Blade Runner... I'm staying cautiously optimistic...

Whoever to forgot to tell Harrison Ford to change from his t-shirt into costume should have been fired though 

[Andrew Reid]

5 hours ago, Jimmy said:

I thought the opposite.... This looks an organic and gritty vision of a technology driven future.

Ghost in the shell was so clean and pristine that it looked like a computer game in the big city shots.

And Blade Runner 2049 doesn't, with an Atari logo?

[AaronChicago]

This looks amazing. I think Denis can add a new depth to Blade Runner that didn't exist. The visuals are a win - that's a given.

[Jimmy]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

And Blade Runner 2049 doesn't, with an Atari logo?

Haha.. well... Sonic the hedgehog shows up in the full feature...

But the Atari throwback aside.... It looks far more gritty than Ghost in the shell (city wide shots.... Some of the sets/exteriors were more gritty).

[KrisAK]

Nice writeup.

I probably shouldn't take the bait, but 6-10-21 sound biblical:

Ephesians 6:10-21 (Armour of God):

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

Or not.

[AaronChicago]

38 minutes ago, KrisAK said:

Nice writeup.

I probably shouldn't take the bait, but 6-10-21 sound biblical:

Ephesians 6:10-21 (Armour of God):

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

Or not.

Interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to find little subtle references everywhere. I'm guessing in the movie it'll be a specific date, which is 2 years after the original Blade Runner took place.

[KrisAK]

11 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

Interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to find little subtle references everywhere. I'm guessing in the movie it'll be a specific date, which is 2 years after the original Blade Runner took place.

Yeah, it's a reach. The quasi-religious element of the book (Mercerism?) was absent from first movie; I keep hoping it might pop-up somewhere in this...