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

[Bioskop.Inc]

4 hours ago, Phil A said:

But then BladeRunner (which I love as a movie) was a bad representation of the book "Do androids dream of electric sheep" in my opinion, the book was so much better. The movie diverted so far from the story, they might as well make a sequel.

Yes the book is far better & slightly different.

The one thing that the new trailer has completely overlooked is that the original film always had the question of whether Deckard was an android at its core (depending on which version you watch, obviously) & by having an ageing Harrison Ford, that question has now been answered. But what i did notice is that they have basically pushed that question onto Gosling's character - so yet again Hollywood has rehashed the same story into a more updated version, which will be unsatisfying. Don't mess with the classics, as dissappointment will be the only result!

Seen 2 films at the cinema recently: Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 & The Handmaiden. One was a huge waste of time, energy & money - also too long at 2h16min (Baby Groot couldn't save it). The other is almost certainly the best film that i'll see this year, by one of the most talented directors around.

I really think people need to forget Hollywood rubbish (they're never going to change & will regurgitate everything in a worse wrapper) & learn to embrace reading subtitles, because the best cinema isn't American or even in English!

[AaronChicago]

2 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Yes the book is far better & slightly different.

The one thing that the new trailer has completely overlooked is that the original film always had the question of whether Deckard was an android at its core (depending on which version you watch, obviously) & by having an ageing Harrison Ford, that question has now been answered. But what i did notice is that they have basically pushed that question onto Gosling's character - so yet again Hollywood has rehashed the same story into a more updated version, which will be unsatisfying. Don't mess with the classics, as dissappointment will be the only result!

Seen 2 films at the cinema recently: Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 & The Handmaiden. One was a huge waste of time, energy & money - also too long at 2h16min (Baby Groot couldn't save it). The other is almost certainly the best film that i'll see this year, by one of the most talented directors around.

I really think people need to forget Hollywood rubbish (they're never going to change & will regurgitate everything in a worse wrapper) & learn to embrace reading subtitles, because the best cinema isn't American or even in English!

They said that Goseling isn't a replicant in an interview and that it won't be the core of this film. Although you're right about Deckard aging. That answers that unless they reference aging components.

[Juxx989]

5 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

They said that Goseling isn't a replicant in an interview and that it won't be the core of this film. Although you're right about Deckard aging. That answers that unless they reference aging components.

I believe replicants only have a 4 year life span... so if harrison ford is alive he cant be... or maybe he is fake recently made one that was created aged to manipulate the protagonist!!!

[Bioskop.Inc]

10 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

They said that Goseling isn't a replicant in an interview and that it won't be the core of this film. Although you're right about Deckard aging. That answers that unless they reference aging components.

Thank god for that - got kinda worried that they'd go down the tried/tested route & basically remake the first film. I don't read stuff before I watch, as there are too many spoilers getting printed these days & I don't want to know everything before.

But honestly, I think I'm looking forward to the new Alien film more - mainly because that is my favourite Ridley Scott film.

Also not really convinced by the director - his films are up & down quality-wise, but he appears to be a good lap dog.

[AaronChicago]

3 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Also not really convinced by the director - his films are up & down quality-wise, but he appears to be a good lap dog.

Keep in mind that Villeneuve isn't a writer on any of his big films. The only problems I've had with some of his recent films are story related.  I think he's a super talented director.

[Tim Sewell]

Quote

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.

Deakins is declining to go into much detail until the film is released, but in every question ha has answered he has emphasised that the looks were achieved on set in the camera and that virtually no post manipulation was used. I can well believe this.

[Bioskop.Inc]

5 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

Keep in mind that Villeneuve isn't a writer on any of his big films. The only problems I've had with some of his recent films are story related.  I think he's a super talented director.

Well he did write/co-write his early films & this shouldn't be forgotten - he can tell a story & has.

Of his American films the pick of the bunch are Enemy & Arrival, but one shouldn't ignore his Canadian films Polytechnique & Incendies, which are excellent.

The thing I find troubling with him is that he tends to jump around a lot & this makes for a lot of Hit'n'Miss films - I found Sicario to be very dissappointing & not worthy of all the praise it was getting.

[AaronChicago]

1 hour ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Well he did write/co-write his early films & this shouldn't be forgotten - he can tell a story & has.

Of his American films the pick of the bunch are Enemy & Arrival, but one shouldn't ignore his Canadian films Polytechnique & Incendies, which are excellent.

The thing I find troubling with him is that he tends to jump around a lot & this makes for a lot of Hit'n'Miss films - I found Sicario to be very dissappointing & not worthy of all the praise it was getting.

Fair enough. I loved Sicario. My expectations weren't very high going in though. I think I saw it before all of the reviews were out.

[Fritz Pierre]

2 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Well he did write/co-write his early films & this shouldn't be forgotten - he can tell a story & has.

Of his American films the pick of the bunch are Enemy & Arrival, but one shouldn't ignore his Canadian films Polytechnique & Incendies, which are excellent.

The thing I find troubling with him is that he tends to jump around a lot & this makes for a lot of Hit'n'Miss films - I found Sicario to be very dissappointing & not worthy of all the praise it was getting.

Yes me too...I never finished watching the film..and it's rare that I do that...the direction felt clunky...none of the characters felt convincing....I found the firefight scene with all the cars parked in line at the border crossing ridiculous...although all the actors were first rate...so I think the blame has to fall on him....of course a lot of people liked Sicario...just did not work for me.

[Nikkor]

Sicario was a bad movie, the proof is that nobody will remember it in the future.

[Timotheus]

For me, one of the most interesting commercial directors for sure. And I'll sure remember Sicario: the chilling scene of Benicio gunning down a drug lord's kids and lady...the shootout in the traffic jam. Some tense stuff.

But hey, to each their own.

[Nikkor]

9 minutes ago, Timotheus said:

For me, one of the most interesting commercial directors for sure. And I'll sure remember Sicario: the chilling scene of Benicio gunning down a drug lord's kids and lady...the shootout in the traffic jam. Some tense stuff.

But hey, to each their own.

The scenes are nice, but adding many nice scenes doesn't equal making a good movie.

[Bioskop.Inc]

14 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Yes me too...I never finished watching the film..and it's rare that I do that...the direction felt clunky...none of the characters felt convincing....I found the firefight scene with all the cars parked in line at the border crossing ridiculous...although all the actors were first rate...so I think the blame has to fall on him....of course a lot of people liked Sicario...just did not work for me.

It really feels like a film that has been over edited & some crucial linking material has been thrown out. There are some nice performances & Deakins cinematography fits well, but it feels like something is missing...

My mate loves Scario, but hated Arrival & I'm the opposite - go figure! I just worry that the new Blade Runner could go either way & am not really looking forward to seeing it - i'm not excited, just feel hollow about it all.

I feel that living in the UK, I'm missing out on some really good films - there is no diversity & I'm not talking about skin colour! The big blockbusters just swollow up all the screens & I've missed so many great films because they only get a weeks run, if that. Having lived in France during my 20s, I found that they made the effort to surpress the American Juggernaut of below par films and insisted that a large variety of films from around the world had a even playing field. In the UK even out own mediocre produce (numbers & quality) suffer & it just makes me mad. The only saving grace is the rise of streaming & now I can watch what I like. But I still want to go to the cinema & enjoy that experience too, but am being hindered....

Now the new Twin Peaks series and Valerian have me chomping at the bit.

[Fritz Pierre]

2 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

It really feels like a film that has been over edited & some crucial linking material has been thrown out. There are some nice performances & Deakins cinematography fits well, but it feels like something is missing...

Agreed...and well put....a series of beautifully shots and even acted scenes, and yet no chemistry (for want of a better word) between the actual film and the scenes it consists of....I thought Arrival was the far better film (Amy Adams is a powerful actor) but I felt the creative reasons behind shooting the film practically with no light escaped me....it was a strain to actually see the film....like a DR 101 for the Alexa or whatever they shot on....and I'm not trying to be a cruel critic...and he has to make his own creative choices....I know that making the shittiest film in the world is still a Herculan effort....but he is now at the top of the game!...so back to topic....maybe my low expectations for Blade Runner will turn out to be a surprise....still regret Ridley Scott not being at the helm....even in his seventies few directors can touch his skill!

[DmitriZigany]

I don't mind them trying to make a sequel... Even if it's one tenth as good as the original/first, it will most likely still be twice as good as most things coming out

I really hate the idea that Deckard could be a Replicant. So the biggest thing they could do to eff things up for me is that if he is. (they could explain it by saying that if the 4-year lifespan is never implemented, they age like humans, I would hate that).

[eris]

Maybe it's too early, but like Alien, the original is a thing of beauty that doesn't need remaking nor a sequel.  With Aliens we got lucky, but what I've seen of the this trailer doesn't impress me.  No anamorphic, no beautiful music, no Rutger Hauer, no poetry.  It's almost as if AIs tried to mimic the look and feel without the substance and then screwed up the look and feel.  Sadness.

[AaronChicago]

There's a new featurette available showing BTS.

http://nofilmschool.com/2017/06/dp-roger-deakins-reveals-blade-runner-2049-tech-challenges-jaw-dropping-new-bts-featurette

Which Canon camera is this that they're flying?

 

 

[BenEricson]

4 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

There's a new featurette available showing BTS.

http://nofilmschool.com/2017/06/dp-roger-deakins-reveals-blade-runner-2049-tech-challenges-jaw-dropping-new-bts-featurette

Which Canon camera is this that they're flying?

 

 

1Dxii or 1DC.

[tugela]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 0:31 PM, Bioskop.Inc said:

Yes the book is far better & slightly different.

The one thing that the new trailer has completely overlooked is that the original film always had the question of whether Deckard was an android at its core (depending on which version you watch, obviously) & by having an ageing Harrison Ford, that question has now been answered. But what i did notice is that they have basically pushed that question onto Gosling's character - so yet again Hollywood has rehashed the same story into a more updated version, which will be unsatisfying. Don't mess with the classics, as dissappointment will be the only result!

Seen 2 films at the cinema recently: Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 & The Handmaiden. One was a huge waste of time, energy & money - also too long at 2h16min (Baby Groot couldn't save it). The other is almost certainly the best film that i'll see this year, by one of the most talented directors around.

I really think people need to forget Hollywood rubbish (they're never going to change & will regurgitate everything in a worse wrapper) & learn to embrace reading subtitles, because the best cinema isn't American or even in English!

Just for accuracy, androids are robots that look and behave like humans, while cyborgs are people with robotic components.

The characters in the movie were "replicants", basically genetically engineered clones. They were NOT androids. They were as human as anyone else, but only with a very limited world experience and a short shelf life. The movie was about them grappling to find their own humanity and not really understanding what being human was all about (since they were essentially toddlers being exploited as soldiers), not about them being robots.

[Bioskop.Inc]

10 hours ago, tugela said:

Just for accuracy, androids are robots that look and behave like humans, while cyborgs are people with robotic components.

The characters in the movie were "replicants", basically genetically engineered clones. They were NOT androids. They were as human as anyone else, but only with a very limited world experience and a short shelf life. The movie was about them grappling to find their own humanity and not really understanding what being human was all about (since they were essentially toddlers being exploited as soldiers), not about them being robots.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K Dick......