Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
R0lf
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#276 Post by R0lf » Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:22 am

This is just another GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO situation where they spent way too much money making a film where the script doesn't really warrant it. If they'd bought the film in on half the budget everything would be fine.

nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#277 Post by nitin » Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:26 am

R0lf wrote:This is just another GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO situation where they spent way too much money making a film where the script doesn't really warrant it. If they'd bought the film in on half the budget everything would be fine.
huh by that logic all the superhero film scripts must be so great to deserve the money spent!

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#278 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:31 pm

I'm not crazy about second-guessing what might be my favorite movie of this year, but perhaps if they cast some more well-known faces in some of the supporting roles and marketed it a bit more as an A-list ensemble piece it could have gained more interest from "general audiences".

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#279 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:38 pm

nitin wrote:
R0lf wrote:This is just another GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO situation where they spent way too much money making a film where the script doesn't really warrant it. If they'd bought the film in on half the budget everything would be fine.
huh by that logic all the superhero film scripts must be so great to deserve the money spent!
That's a complete misreading of what R0lf is saying. In both of those instances, they're films that were made on large budgets that could have been made on more modest ones. He's not saying that they're of a lower quality because of their ability to be made for less money.

Apperson
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:47 pm
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#280 Post by Apperson » Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:18 pm

Well the obvious point to make is how if they were going to make this film at all it needed to have a $100+ million budget to have the visual complexity on par with the original.

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is obviously more applicable here. (How the fuck did $90 million get spent on that script/premise/genre?)

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#281 Post by Big Ben » Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:27 pm

mfunk9786 wrote: That's a complete misreading of what R0lf is saying. In both of those instances, they're films that were made on large budgets that could have been made on more modest ones. He's not saying that they're of a lower quality because of their ability to be made for less money.
I agree but it's one of those things where not making those expenses would be noticed not least by the core fanbase. They could have certainly done this but given the already hostile nature of the internet a failed Blade Runner would have Villeneuve a persona non grata instantly. I don't like that implication any more than I'm sure any of you do but that's the world we live in. Blade Runner failing at the box office is the most Blade Runner thing ever.

nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#282 Post by nitin » Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:44 am

mfunk9786 wrote:
nitin wrote:
R0lf wrote:This is just another GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO situation where they spent way too much money making a film where the script doesn't really warrant it. If they'd bought the film in on half the budget everything would be fine.
huh by that logic all the superhero film scripts must be so great to deserve the money spent!
That's a complete misreading of what R0lf is saying. In both of those instances, they're films that were made on large budgets that could have been made on more modest ones. He's not saying that they're of a lower quality because of their ability to be made for less money.
But I am not sure he was saying that? R0lf specifically ties the budget to whether the script warranted it. Also, the comparison to The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo doesnt really hold up; as both Apperson and Big Ben point out, one is a film in the crime/thriller genre that doesnt really call out for a $90-100M budget, the other is a science fiction film set in a vision of the future that is hardly accommodating of the sort of minimalism (and consequently lower budget) pulled off in say Arrival.

I mean dont get me wrong, I fully appreciate that this could have been brought in for under $150M. I dont agree that it could have been brought in for half but it definitely could have been brought in for less. But unlike The Girl With a Dragon Tattoo, you can actually see every $ on screen.

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#283 Post by Black Hat » Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:00 am

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I'm not crazy about second-guessing what might be my favorite movie of this year, but perhaps if they cast some more well-known faces in some of the supporting roles and marketed it a bit more as an A-list ensemble piece it could have gained more interest from "general audiences".
I'd go the other way on this and think if there was a more flashy cast they film would have gotten dragged more than it was. A near three hour slow paced movie with long takes was never everybody's cup of tea and now in the age of youtube & snapchat it might as well be rat poison. I talked about the movie one night at a bar with some Columbia kids, they called it Ryan Gosling models a coat for 3 hours and to be fair they're not wrong, it was a really nice coat and it got an insane amount of screen time.

Also guys get off filmstruck for a minute, Gosling is as A list a star as you can get.

User avatar
R0lf
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#284 Post by R0lf » Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:55 am

Now that you mention it. I might actually go see some of those summer movies if they were made on a fraction of their budget. Just imagine how much better something like TARZAN would have been if it was Alexander Skatsgard and Margot Robbie simply with cameras on them rolling around the jungle half naked and covered in mud. Similarly superhero movies would be so much more thrilling with the tactile spectacle of hard bodies throwing themselves together. Movies spend so much money these days making themselves bland.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#285 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:10 am

What if summer movies were made on their exact budget, but a fraction of their time? The most exciting thing about a lot of these movies are seeing their trailers, so why not give into the short attention span and make a movie over 100 million but under 10 minutes?

User avatar
Lost Highway
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#286 Post by Lost Highway » Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:36 am

Since the original Blade Runner was made, Hollywood budgets have escalated. Even when adjusted for inflation the original Blade Runner‘s $ 28 million would now only be around $ 72 million and that was considered a big budget back then. Had the new film been made on the same scale as the original, it would have been a hit, but the sequel’s budget was more than twice that.

I still think the original is a far better looking film than Blade Runner 2049, I don’t get the praise for the sequel‘s visuals. Where the original is full of clutter and detail which occupies the eyes, the sequel looks sleek and a little bland. After I watched the sequel and being disappointed by it, I went home, fired up my projector to watch Blade Runner on blu-ray and I was still blown away by its beauty.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#287 Post by MichaelB » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:06 am

Black Hat wrote:I read somewhere Villeneuve tossed Scott off the set so I'm sure he's pissed off about that.
Scott wasn’t remotely “tossed off the set”, and if accounts of the incident are correct Villeneuve couldn’t have handled it more diplomatically, by asking Scott how comfortable he’d be if his favourite director was looking over his shoulder the whole time while he tried to make a sequel to one of that director’s best known films. As a result of that conversation, Scott left the set entirely voluntarily - which is completely believable because Villeneuve most likely wouldn’t have had the contractual power to “toss him off the set” anyway, what with Scott being senior in the production pecking order.

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#288 Post by Black Hat » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:48 am

Scott 'wasn't remotely tossed off the set', except Villeneuve asked him to no longer show up. Not sure what the difference is Michael, rumored politeness? Clearly something about Scott was making Villeneuve uncomfortable during production, maybe it is indeed the story Villeneuve described, but forgive me if I'm skeptical that was the whole story. Among other things I find it hard to believe Ridley Scott is Villeneuve's favorite director.

Scott's comments sure were salty and I can't remember the last time a director let along a big hollywood one was talking spicy about another one's movie let alone one that's barely out of theaters yet, some places even are still playing it..

I think Scott as a guy who's been making movies for 50 years , including the one this film was based, has a right to be annoyed, but to be that explicit about it in an interview promoting another movie to me was poor form and came off as having an ax to grind.

I'm sure at some point down the line we'll get the full story if there was one.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#289 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:53 am

It could just be his attempt at shifting the conversation away from Kevin Spacey while he's doing the rounds for his latest movie.

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#290 Post by Black Hat » Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:47 am

I think as far as Scott's concerned he's been lauded one for not messing around with Spacey and two reshooting so quickly. It's probably going down as one his career's highlights.

Whatever Scott's motivation, whatever relationship they had during filming, I'm sure Villeneuve was not happy when he saw Scott's comments. If Scott is indeed his favorite filmmaker, it makes Scott look even worse in my eyes. What an asshole.

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#291 Post by Brian C » Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:23 am

Actually my favorite part of that interview is when Scott claims he makes two movies a year, as if that's something he routinely does.

User avatar
solaris72
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:03 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#292 Post by solaris72 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:22 am

Black Hat wrote:If Scott is indeed his favorite filmmaker, it makes Scott look even worse in my eyes. What an asshole.
Scott's definitely an asshole for the part of the interview where he says (of 2049) "most of that script's mine" and "I will not take credit...I can't be bothered."

ethan17
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:29 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#293 Post by ethan17 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:13 am

Why does this film begin with an extreme close-up of an eye, and whose eye is it?

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#294 Post by Big Ben » Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:03 am

Brian C wrote:Actually my favorite part of that interview is when Scott claims he makes two movies a year, as if that's something he routinely does.
His "Scotness" reached critical mass last year when, at eighty he worked eighteen hours a day for a little over a week to complete All the Money in the World. At this point I'm not even sure he functions on or in our reality anymore.

RIP Film
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#295 Post by RIP Film » Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:14 am

ethan17 wrote:Why does this film begin with an extreme close-up of an eye, and whose eye is it?
In the original it was Roy Batty’s, here it is Dr. Ana’s. I think.

The length and pacing was the films one saving grace, I don’t think the script was particularly stand out. Not sure why Scott is so fond of talking about himself like a cog in the machinery, to him it’s like film is nothing more than a business.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#296 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:04 pm

Regarding the original film, I'm pretty sure I've heard that the eye was an allusion to Big Brother, or a general sense of a surveillance state. I think on the DVD at different times different people said it was either that, or Batty.

As to it's place in 2049, I'd debate whether it's Dr. Ana's or not (I seem to remember *but could be wrong* her having brown eyes, and the one which opens the film is blue).

RIP Film
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#297 Post by RIP Film » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:12 pm

Some guy (Here) actually compared various actors' eyes and found that Carla Juri's was the closest match. Her eyes are brown, but she does wear blue contacts in the film for her character.

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#298 Post by Black Hat » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:39 am

solaris72 wrote:
Black Hat wrote:If Scott is indeed his favorite filmmaker, it makes Scott look even worse in my eyes. What an asshole.
Scott's definitely an asshole for the part of the interview where he says (of 2049) "most of that script's mine" and "I will not take credit...I can't be bothered."
What makes Scott's comments more off putting is the fact his own Alien Covenant bombed worse than Blade Runner. At least the latter gained its fair share of praise.

ethan17
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:29 am

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#299 Post by ethan17 » Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:08 am

Beyond who it is, why does the film open with that shot?

User avatar
Lost Highway
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#300 Post by Lost Highway » Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:17 am

ethan17 wrote:Beyond who it is, why does the film open with that shot?
In the original it is because the Voight-Kampff machine is the device which by recording eye movement, determines whether someone is human or replicant. In this case the eye is Leon's. Blade Runner indicates in the first shot what the entire film will be about. The film returns to eye imagery several times, be that as artificial spare parts, human eyes gouged out or glowing in the dark.

By also starting with a close up of an eye, the sequel obviously refers back to the start of the original. But in this case it's K's eye and much of the film hinges on whether he is a replicant or a human-replicant hybrid. In the sequel the shot is more homage, the sequel doesn't feature the eye as a visual theme the way the original does.

Post Reply