|
precision posted:this is it. Thank you, I meant to buy that forever ago but I forgot. Ordered.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
Random Integer posted:Welles never struck me as being particularly arrogant. He was a big, boisterous guy who liked to talk, and he lived he a fascinating life so he had a lot to talk about. But he had a fine line in self-deprecating humour and never seemed to take himself too seriously in any interviews Ive seen or read with him. That's fair. Arrogant is the wrong word and I withdraw it. Insanely accomplished and not shy about talking about it is a better description, but I don't think there's a word for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
I think "proud" works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Rewatched this in 4k to see if I'd like it better, and it plays even worse the 2nd time. The first 90 minutes is obscenely long for how little of interest happens, and the Villeneuve/Deakins aesthetic, while good in its own right, just doesn't feel right for a Blade Runner movie. All wide angles and clean lines, very digital, precise. Very little smoke and atmosphere outside of a few establishing shots, very sparse environments. If the slow pacing is an attempt to replicate the dreamy feel of the original, it doesn't work here, because it feels like actors slowly walking through huge sets as opposed to guiding you into this cluttered confusing world. I would say once he visits the memory maker, the movie picks up and is pretty solid through the end, although even then, I never get emotionally invested in the way I do with the original. Harrison Ford is the only one who brings a spark of life to the movie, so it feels like a big miscalculation to make him a glorified cameo. And Jared Leto loving sucks, his scenes should've been the first to get chopped down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
As much as I disagree with some of your points, I have to agree that Leto is by far the weakest part of the movie. Just a dumb idea to go that route with the character.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
Just miscast. Give that same dialogue to a Max Von Sydow or Ian Mckellen and it might work. Leto makes it borderline laughable. Doesn't help that they don't even resolve his story, which is another knock against the movie in my book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:Just miscast. Give that same dialogue to a Max Von Sydow or Ian Mckellen and it might work. Leto makes it borderline laughable. Yea that's what I mean, Leto took the dialogue and decided to do something weird with it that just doesn't work at all. It needed to be someone with more gravitas and less surface level weirdness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure this was my favorite movie of last year. Just love everything about it. Even somehow I also like Jared in it because his part is so small and he does it good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
I simply don't understand how you can watch the first 90 minutes of this movie and not be asking yourself "how did this happen? Why does the city look like this? What's the deal with <this wild thing that they've established>?" I can't help but feel that thinking "nothing happens" in the first 90 minutes is a real lack of inquisitiveness and engagement. I'm sorry if that sounds like an insult, I don't mean it as one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
I wish I didn't know that Villeneuve wanted Bowie for the part of Wallace, because that would have been so good, it pains me. Leto is just serviceable as a pretentious next gen tech douche. But I found the weakest part to be the one eyed woman just plopping the replicant revolution subplot into the movie out of nowhere. It wasn't set up well at all. Which is made even worse because she then gives the big reveal of K not being "the one" like a minute later. It should've been this big emotional moment, and instead you feel "huh. drat, ok." It made me wonder if this scene was shoehorned in as an attempt to set up a potential Bladeiverse sequel plot, which they were seriously considering. How K reacts to all this and the climax is what saves everything from going completely off the rails. That being said, I'm fine with the design being a bit more digital and clean lines (even if everything is still pretty grimy). It's 35 years later, I'd expect the design of the world and tech to evolve and develop a kind of sleekness to it. But I do think it could've used more outdoor scenes in the city to give a greater sense of the world. Original BR presented an overcrowded hustle and bustle place of activity, lights, rain, steam, machinery and sometimes bizarrely ornate costumes. The new one is practically austere in comparison. K's apartment is a prison cell compared to Deckard's old lavish 2019 digs. The DNA room, the forensics O.R., the Casino in Vegas, the scrapyard landscapes, the halls of Wallace Corp, the solar farms, everything is so overwhelmingly stark. I get the feeling this may be a deliberate choice to reflect the loneliness of K the replicant, a singular thing operating solo in a huge oppressive world that he can never fully be a part of. It may not be classic Blade Runner, but I'm fine with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
It's interesting because part of me respects the decision to not try to copy the aesthetic, but then I watch the movie and it just doesn't work visually for me the way the original did. I think a semi recent example like Children of Men does a way better job of being a spiritual successor to the cluttered Blade Runner dystopia feel than this movie, which has more in common with something like Oblivion in terms of design. Even scenes like the kids deconstructing garbage, are framed in wide symmetrical ordered shots, and I just disagree with that choice. I would say the Vegas sequence is the most successful at being evocative without being derivative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Leto is just serviceable as a pretentious next gen tech douche. I thought that's what made it work. He's playing someone who's building off the work of someone who was much better than him in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:I thought that's what made it work. He's playing someone who's building off the work of someone who was much better than him in the movie. Also, the delusions of grandeur kind of worked for me. Leto himself comes off as incredibly self-impressed, so playing a tech bro who thinks he's a God-king actually makes a lot of sense. Though, yeah, Bowie would've been cool as gently caress. Maybe they should've leaned into that and cast Tilda Swinton. The stillness and emptiness of the setting totally fit the movie, for me. It does feel austere and lifeless compared to the original, but that seemed like the point...the Earth is a desert, nearly abandoned. The only "life" remaining are the layers and layers of artifice, literally replicants and holograms and synthetic farms and trash. Meanwhile, the primary driver of the plot is a child who shouldn't exist, born to a sterile mother. Which is ironically similar to Children of Men, but obviously approached very differently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Xealot posted:The stillness and emptiness of the setting totally fit the movie, for me. It does feel austere and lifeless compared to the original, but that seemed like the point...the Earth is a desert, nearly abandoned. The only "life" remaining are the layers and layers of artifice, literally replicants and holograms and synthetic farms and trash. This is almost word for word accurate to the setting as talked about in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep too so it was very fitting for me. Blade Runner itself is set completely in the urban sprawl but even when making that movie the idea was that you had these super super super concentrated urban centers and then you got a few miles away from that and situations like JF Sebastian living in a massive building all to himself is the norm. 2049's opening scene with the massive automated farms seguing to the massive dead city was actually from the first movie's script but they ended up not going with it (the blade runner already in someone's home and the brief conversation about soup was from the original script too  ).
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
Xealot posted:Also, the delusions of grandeur kind of worked for me. Leto himself comes off as incredibly self-impressed, so playing a tech bro who thinks he's a God-king actually makes a lot of sense. Though, yeah, Bowie would've been cool as gently caress. Maybe they should've leaned into that and cast Tilda Swinton. Along with how Leto only ever boasts and soliloquises to people he's created who are subservient to him. Deckard shuts him down almost instantly when they talk. He's not supposed to be someone impressive. There's a level on which it works as a metaphor for the immense reverence the original film is held in, which was made by people who were just making a movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
Leto was fine, more interesting than any of the main characters, and the only good part of the movie after Dave Bautista. Whole film should've been about him farming grubs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Leto was fine, more interesting than any of the main characters, and the only good part of the movie after Dave Bautista. this is a really dumb opinion
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Leto was fine, more interesting than any of the main characters, and the only good part of the movie after Dave Bautista. Basically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:19
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Basically. Yaws posted:this is a really dumb opinion
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
Yaws posted:this is a really dumb opinion I assume this post is referring to itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
"I know you are but what am I" I shout into the formless void. Across the infinite cold reaches of space comes a voice. "Takes one to know one"
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:27
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:"I know you are but what am I" I shout into the formless void. Across the infinite cold reaches of space comes a voice. "Takes one to know one" "I'm rubber you're glue" durrrrrr
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
In this year’s director’s roundtable with the Hollywood Reporter, Villenueve mentioned that there was one actor on then film who, when it came time to film their scenes, made him realizing he’d made a mistake in casting him. He said he was able to push and force a serviceable performance out of them, but that the choice was still a clear mistake. He doesn’t name who it was, but could it be anyone except Leto?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:In this year’s director’s roundtable with the Hollywood Reporter, Villenueve mentioned that there was one actor on then film who, when it came time to film their scenes, made him realizing he’d made a mistake in casting him. He said he was able to push and force a serviceable performance out of them, but that the choice was still a clear mistake. Wood Harris, maybe. He had a scene in the trailer that was cut from the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 10:40
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:It's interesting because part of me respects the decision to not try to copy the aesthetic, but then I watch the movie and it just doesn't work visually for me the way the original did. I think a semi recent example like Children of Men does a way better job of being a spiritual successor to the cluttered Blade Runner dystopia feel than this movie, which has more in common with something like Oblivion in terms of design. Even scenes like the kids deconstructing garbage, are framed in wide symmetrical ordered shots, and I just disagree with that choice. I would say the Vegas sequence is the most successful at being evocative without being derivative. So you're saying that the sequence revolving around the man living in the past (of 2019) is most evocative of the movie set in that period, while everything else has moved on. I'd call that quality use of filmic language, but YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:01
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:But I found the weakest part to be the one eyed woman just plopping the replicant revolution subplot into the movie out of nowhere. It wasn't set up well at all. She didn't actually drop that plot point. The police chief says, find and kill this child because if it is alive, a war will happen. IE a rebellion! It is basically the entire plot of the movie. Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:36
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:She didn't actually drop that plot point. The police chief says, find and kill this child because if it is alive, a war will happen. IE a rebellion! It is basically the entire plot of the movie. I think it's the core of their first exchange. It's the point of 'you tell people there's a line... '
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:She didn't actually drop that plot point. The police chief says, find and kill this child because if it is alive, a war will happen. IE a rebellion! It is basically the entire plot of the movie. Yet there was no indication of an actual replicant army until over 2hrs into the movie. We had a 2 minute scene of a couple of mysterious replicants watching K, and then nothing until they picked him up in Vegas. Wright's warning about a war struck me as a fear of the likely inevitability, not that she was afraid of a literal army that already existed. The movie gave us no sense of immediate danger there. Most of the tension in the second act comes from believing K is the child and what will happen to him, not the fear of war. And Wright's fear that the news of the replicant birth would leak seemed to be focused on Wallace Corp finding out, for some reason, and not a replicant army who already knows about it anyway. I'm not saying they didn't try to set it up, but it's pretty weak, which is why that replicant rebel scene is so jarring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
They don't really have an army yet, it's a rag tag resistance force, and the idea is that the child's existence will inspire others to join them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:He doesn’t name who it was, but could it be anyone except Leto? No, Villeneuve has been actually quite effusive in his praise of Leto.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Did this get a better bluray release outside of the US? This disc is sad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Wright's warning about a war struck me as a fear of the likely inevitability, not that she was afraid of a literal army that already existed. The movie gave us no sense of immediate danger there. Most of the tension in the second act comes from believing K is the child and what will happen to him, not the fear of war. And Wright's fear that the news of the replicant birth would leak seemed to be focused on Wallace Corp finding out, for some reason, and not a replicant army who already knows about it anyway. So you accept the police chief foresaw a war would break out over the child but you can't accept that the police chief didn't think that they would already be forming an group even though they have known about the child the entire time? Literally the only people who recently learn the child exists are the bad guys and the first thing they do is start trying to kill their way to the child. The whole K thinks he is a child is just on top of that as a red herring. The opening scene is a robot man fighting for a cause because he saw a miracle. Hes not trying to just hide to just stay alive, hes fully aware of the plan and the child. It is literally the first things that happen in the movie. Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Jan 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:In this year’s director’s roundtable with the Hollywood Reporter, Villenueve mentioned that there was one actor on then film who, when it came time to film their scenes, made him realizing he’d made a mistake in casting him. He said he was able to push and force a serviceable performance out of them, but that the choice was still a clear mistake. Probably Ford.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
precision posted:Probably Ford. This joke is solid as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Nearly the whole movie is from K's viewpoint. You find out about the rebellious replicants when he does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
I never got the sequel bait vibe from the replicant rebellion thing either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Nearly the whole movie is from K's viewpoint. You find out about the rebellious replicants when he does. See, this is how I took it the first time I saw it. Origami Dali posted:I like that the replicant rebel army scene was so short and out of nowhere, to the point where as an audience member you don't care, because K seemed to respond the same way. Their cause isn't as important to him as his own. But on a recent viewing, it feels like the way the scene plays, the movie wants you to care about this rebel cause, yet as a viewer I don't because I have no idea who these random people are. Tenzarin posted:Literally the only people who recently learn the child exists are the bad guys and the first thing they do is start trying to kill their way to the child. Thinking about it further, I'm not sure what Wright's motivation to stop Wallace from finding the child is. It isn't like Wallace has the interests of replicants at heart. The only thing killing the child would accomplish is to prevent Wallace from finding her, gutting her, and discovering Tyrell's secret birth mods so he can build a larger slave workforce, the results of which would have made replicant lives worse and, presumably (by Wallace's reasoning), human lives better. Even Luv tells Wright that "In the face of the fabulous new, your only thought is to kill it, for fear of great change." but what change is she talking about? Dissolving the line between human and replicant? Luv is fighting for the opportunity breed slaves on a massive scale, and Wright is fighting to maintain the line between slave and free person. They're on the same side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Thinking about it further, I'm not sure what Wright's motivation to stop Wallace from finding the child is. It isn't like Wallace has the interests of replicants at heart. The only thing killing the child would accomplish is to prevent Wallace from finding her, gutting her, and discovering Tyrell's secret birth mods so he can build a larger slave workforce, the results of which would have made replicant lives worse and, presumably (by Wallace's reasoning), human lives better. It's an unknown element that could upset the status quo, and Wright's character is a protector of the status quo. She clearly doesn't believe that Wallace will be able to control the situation once word gets out of the child's existence, and even if he does, the world he creates will be much different than the one Wright is maintaining, which is her job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:She clearly doesn't believe that Wallace will be able to control the situation... Considering you've got these ex-Facebook tech types now saying they sort of knew the risks of the new social technology they were dealing with and ignored them because they were blinded by the light of "innovation", and now regret the havoc they've caused, yeah, I can buy that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Thinking about it further, I'm not sure what Wright's motivation to stop Wallace from finding the child is. She says her job is to keep the peace and the child existing would harm that. Everything you are missing is basically spelled out at the start of the movie. Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Jan 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 01:57
|
|