Blade Runner 2049

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Just now, BloodBoal said:

 

Tomorrow, maybe. I'm not in the mood today!

 

 

You're never in the mood!  Always making excuses!  My self-esteem is at an all-time low 

 

Am I just not desirable any more?

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

1 minute ago, Jay said:

There's been an awful lot of mocking others for their personal opinions on this board lately.

 

De gustibus non est disputandum

[BloodBoal 7,538]

1 minute ago, Disco Stu said:

You're never in the mood!  Always making excuses!  My self-esteem is at an all-time low 

 

Am I just not desirable any more?

 

You got fat!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I bet if I looked like Amy Adams we'd have 6 kids by now

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

1 minute ago, Disco Stu said:

I bet if I looked like Amy Adams we'd have 6 kids by now

 

And at least one would be dead.

[publicist 4,643]

11 minutes ago, KK said:

Booo!

 

Yeah well. Sounds like a lot of b/s. But then cases of ill-chosen assignments can happen. Just that in this case it seems highly unlikely that after the fifth-or-so collaboration he suddenly realizes he now needs a completely different approach that couldn't be foreseen during the laborious year-long gestating period with discussions, mock-up's and so forth...?

 

Anyway, the Zimmer is out soon enough and we will see what JJ wasn't able to accomplish.

[KK 3,307]

Indeed. And that he had to put a disclaimer that he "hopes he can work with him again" seems to indicate they parted on less than friendly terms. I wouldn't be surprised to see Zimmer's name on the Dune pic.

 

It's a shame. Director/composer relationships really aren't sacred anymore.

[Lord Zimmer 211]

Zimmer is that side chick he tells you not to worry about.

 

First David Julyan, now JJ. 

[Romão 2,274]

4 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Yes!

 

"I hope Deakins shoots Dune because THAT movie could be a TRUE visual showcase."

 

 

Have it your way then. It wasn't really my intention to imply Blade Runner would offer less visual oportunities

 

4 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

In today's film industry? More like "likely to be shot in vast greenscreen studio sets".

 

 

I'm sure a good part of it will be shot in the open desert.

[A24 4,327]

4 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

The fact that the story was partly too neglected is the only reason why I don't consider that film a masterpiece.

Blade Runner 2049 has still the chance to top the original.

 

It's not neglected. It's simply not a story/plot movie. Neither is Alien or The Duellists. Story is overrated anyway because it's the first thing that suffers from the law of diminishing returns when viewed multiple times. Heck, whatever the story of BR 2049 is about, we'll probably heard it a thousand times before. 

 

3 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

So things are looking up for this, it's getting very good early buzz.

 

On the other hand, the critics slobbered over Arrival as well, which I found to be highly overrated.  So we'll see.

 

Not only ctitics but almost everyone who watched it ... The score at IMBb is a whopping 8/10 with almost 400.000 voters. I suppose that's why the trailer says "From the director of Arrival" (as if he made no other movies).

 

I am with you, though. I didn't hate it but I didn't like it either. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

27 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

 Story is overrated anyway because it's the first thing that suffers from the law of diminishing returns when viewed multiple times.

 

Yep.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

51 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

It's not neglected. It's simply not a story/plot movie. Neither is Alien or The Duellists. Story is overrated anyway because it's the first thing that suffers from the law of diminishing returns when viewed multiple times. Heck, whatever the story of BR 2049 is about, we'll probably heard it a thousand times before. 

This is so true.

[Romão 2,274]

Even more overrated that story, is plot

[Koray Savas 2,251]

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

 

It's not neglected. It's simply not a story/plot movie. Neither is Alien or The Duellists. Story is overrated anyway because it's the first thing that suffers from the law of diminishing returns when viewed multiple times. Heck, whatever the story of BR 2049 is about, we'll probably heard it a thousand times before. 

 

 

Not only ctitics but almost everyone who watched it ... The score at IMBb is a whopping 8/10 with almost 400.000 voters. I suppose that's why the trailer says "From the director of Arrival" (as if he made no other movies).

 

I am with you, though. I didn't hate it but I didn't like it either. 

Good job, you understand the basics of marketing!

[A24 4,327]

Is "From the director of Prisoners and Arrival" such bad marketing?

 

Last time I checked Prisoners is still highly regarded ...

 

 

 

 

[MedigoScan 324]

10 hours ago, KK said:

Indeed. And that he had to put a disclaimer that he "hopes he can work with him again" seems to indicate they parted on less than friendly terms. I wouldn't be surprised to see Zimmer's name on the Dune pic.

 

It's a shame. Director/composer relationships really aren't sacred anymore.

 

Tell that to Nolan

[Quintus 5,399]

I read somewhere yesterday that they're calling this a masterpiece then. 

 

Suuuuure. Never seen this happen before, nope. 

 

Also, who's scoring these days? 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,507]

"Masterpiece"? I guess that we have one week until we find out.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Jesus this film is 2 hours and 44 minutes long?!  Ugh.

 

I saw a couple of people recently say they want movies to be longer.... yeah that is not how I feel.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

4 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Jesus this film is 2 hours and 44 minutes long?!  Ugh.

 

It indicates the film could be a masterpiece!

 

On 27/09/2017 at 10:46 PM, Brundlefly said:

Hopefully, Hans Zimmer didn't fuck it up. Another Interstellar would be great. The only thing that bothers me is the fact that Johann Johannson left the project.

Everything else indicates a masterpiece:

- Villeneuve

- Gosling, Ford, Leto

- 163 min running time

- R-rating

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Movies should be as long or short as they need to be, and not a minute less (or more).

[Quintus 5,399]

2 hours 44? Are we absolutely certain Nolan didn't make this? 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Just now, Nick1066 said:

Movies should be as long or short as they need to be, and not a minute less (or more).

 

Indeed.

 

Unfortunately, these days, movies tend to be longer than they need to be (generally because they feature a bloated, overly long climax).

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Very few movies need running times past 2 hours in my experience.  Especially big tentpole movies these days.

 

I remember when I saw the first Avengers I was ready to run out of the theater by the time the movie finally fucking ended.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Climaxes for action films used to be 15-20 minutes long. Now they're closer to being 40 minutes long, because it makes  everything feel more "epic". Youngsters love it, and studios too, because they seem to think the longer the movie, the more important it is.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

It used to be studios and cinemas wanted shorter running times to they could pack more showings into a day. Now with the rise of the multiplex, that's not so much of an issue.

 

I think there's a certain amount of lack of discipline and sloppiness that accounts at least somewhat for these longer run times. When your story isn't so strong, then you compensate with spectacle, and computer generated effects eat up a LOT of screen time, whereas back in the day no one could afford the costs of creating practical effects to take up so much run time. And since there isn't a lot of correlation between run time and film cost, it's easy to just make the things longer.  But of course there's something to be said for the art of editing and being disciplined, which is why director's cuts aren't always superior to the original. 

 

Most viewers these days just want MORE of everything.

 

19 minutes ago, Quintus said:

2 hours 44? Are we absolutely certain Nolan didn't make this? 

 

In defiance of the long runtime trend, Dunkirk is actually one of the shorter films of the year, and interestingly enough one of the best reviewed, and will probably win the Oscar.

[Quintus 5,399]

Yes it probably has a decent chance. I did appreciate its length, too. 

[KK 3,307]

Oscar for what? Best Picture? Not a chance.

[A24 4,327]

1 hour ago, Nick1066 said:

It used to be studios and cinemas wanted shorter running times to they could pack more showings into a day. Now with the rise of the multiplex, that's not so much of an issue.

 

 

 

Kingdom Of Heaven was heavily mutilated for those reasons and this while multiplexes were already a common thing.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

1 hour ago, BloodBoal said:

Climaxes for action films used to be 15-20 minutes long. Now they're closer to being 40 minutes long, because it makes  everything feel more "epic". Youngsters love it, and studios too, because they seem to think the longer the movie, the more important it is.

I'm really not talking about such movies, when saying that long running time is generally a good sign.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

4 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Kingdom Of Heaven was heavily mutilated for those reasons and this while multiplexes were already a common thing.

 

True.

 

And the director's cut of that excellent movie probably represents the single biggest improvement in a film ever.  

[A24 4,327]

4 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

True.

 

And the director's cut of that excellent movie probably represents the single biggest improvement in a film ever.  

 

Indeed, and I didn't expect that, because I wasn't impressed with the Theatrical Cut. The DC of KOH is probably Scott's last good movie (IMO). It certainly proves that longer movies can work.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

It's a little sad for Scott that in reviving his classics, he went with Alien and left Blade Runner to someone else...and by all indications it's the latter that's going to garner all the praise and prestige.

 

[Fancyarcher 350]

11 minutes ago, KK said:

Oscar for what? Best Picture? Not a chance.

 

It's getting nominated. It's one of the most acclaimed films of the year. Blade Runner 2049 also may get nominated, and The Shape of Water and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri are other strong contenders for best picture. 

[A24 4,327]

About Dunkirk, somehow it didn't hear much hype or people saying it's the best movie ever, which is very unusual for a Nolan movie.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

BR 2049 is looking like it will almost certainly be nominated. And Dunkirk has gotten a lot of Oscar hype and critical accolades. 

 

It's going to be Nolan vs. Villeneuve vs. Spielberg anti-Trump movie. vs. obligatory socially conscious film #1 vs. obligatory socially conscious film #2.

[Fancyarcher 350]

4 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

About Dunkirk, somehow it didn't hear much hype or people saying it's the best movie ever, which is very unusual for a Nolan movie.

 

It's a WW2 set European / British film that made over 500mww, and it was #1 at the North American box office for two weeks. It was very successful. 

[A24 4,327]

Maybe people respect it but this time they are not foaming at the mouth like with other Nolan flicks.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

5 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

About Dunkirk, somehow it didn't hear much hype or people saying it's the best movie ever, which is very unusual for a Nolan movie.

 

Dunkirk was praised in media!

[Fancyarcher 350]

3 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Maybe people respect it but this time they are not foaming at the mouth like with other Nolan flicks.

 

It had some of the best reviews of his career, and I'd say there's a 99% chance he picks up a best director nom in January.

 

8 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

It's looking like it will almost certainly be nominated.

 

It's going to be Nolan vs. Villeneuve vs. Spielberg anti-Trump movie. vs. random socially conscious film #1 vs. random socially conscious film #2.

 

It's Nolan Vs. Villenueve vs. del Toro, at this point, fanboy filmmakers, I'm not 100% sold on the Spielberg film getting a best director nom yet. We haven't seen a full-blown trailer anyway. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

8 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

BR 2049 is looking like it will almost certainly be nominated. And Dunkirk has gotten a lot of Oscar hype and critical accolades. 

 

It's going to be Nolan vs. Villeneuve vs. Spielberg anti-Trump movie. vs. obligatory socially conscious film #1 vs. obligatory socially conscious film #2.

 

Joe Wright’s Darkest Hour seems like a lock too.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Oh, yeah. Forgot del Toro.  Yeah that film will make some waves.

[Fancyarcher 350]

30 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Oh, yeah. Forgot del Toro.  Yeah that film will make some waves.

 

It's one of the most acclaimed films of the year so far, it definitely gonna make some kind of splash. We have a still few months to go though, and most of the best pic nominees get released in November and December.  

 

Edit: The Gillman inspired monster was cool. Nice pun!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

38 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

I'm really not talking about such movies, when saying that long running time is generally a good sign.

 

I know, I know.

 

I was talking generally when I made that comment, I wasn't referring to your post.

 

13 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Oh, yeah. Forgot del Toro.  Yeah that film will make some waves.

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

These could be Best Picture locks:

 

Dunkirk

Darkest Hour

The Post

The Shape of Water

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

 

I include the last one because

(a) I'm really looking forward to it

(b) it won the People's Choice Award at Toronto and 9 out of the last 10 movies to do that got nominated for Best Picture

 

[Brundlefly 2,385]

I have to mention that my former statement:

20 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

Arrival is like Clockwork Orange: Either loved or hated, but the ones who hated it completely missed the point of the movie.

was by no means intended to be offensive or to claim that everyone who did not like the movie is dumb. I simply wanted to say that the ones who hated it should give it at least a second watch, since there is really no reason to depreciate it. Even if the stunning audiovisual style and the slowly paced process of exploring the creatures did not confince you, there is much more in it than many might think. The whole movie is an important essay on language and especially narration in movies, as the usual narrative rules are completely broken in this case: The theory of the movie is that language and narration always depends on a perpective, which becomes more and more clear within the course of the movie - until we, the viewers, find out that our perspective was always deceived: In the first scene Amy Adams loses her son, in the second scene she is initially just walking with a very stern face. The viewer interprets that as frustration and sadness because of her loss, but later we find out that she did not even have a son at that time - so there is not much to interpret in that facial expression. The scene feels much more important when we see it the first time. Scene number 1 makes scene number 2 and a lot more scenes look sadder than it is. Like a poorly written review can make a movie sound stupid and a linguisticly elaborated and comprehensive review can make a movie sound extremely complex and intelligent - it is still the same movie. Arrival, however, breaks one crucial aspect of the medium film: the time. Not that the time does not exist anymore, no, it does not have a course anymore. And the viewers can just be confused, since they are all human beings who cannot see more than one single tiny spot of the timeline at once. The viewers are infinitely bonded to their perspective and the perspective is as important as the language itself for communication. This is what Amy Adams has to learn, gradually, until she is able to fully communicate with the creatures.

In short, it is really an interesting and intelligent movie, not just in a physical-philosophic way. Either you like or not, if course, but there is much to admire about it, so I also recommend it to those who have already seen it but who did not really take pleasure in it.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Is there anyone here who has said they "hate" Arrival?

 

[KK 3,307]

1 hour ago, Fancyarcher said:

 

It's getting nominated. It's one of the most acclaimed films of the year. Blade Runner 2049 also may get nominated, and The Shape of Water and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri are other strong contenders for best picture. 

 

Nominated? Sure. It's not going to win.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

3 minutes ago, KK said:

Nominated? Sure. It's not going to win.

 

Quoted for future reference.

[Fancyarcher 350]

Will see. I still think it has a strong chance of winning director at least.

 

14 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Quoted for future reference.