Slashdot Mirror
'Blade Runner 2049' Isn't the Movie Denis Villeneuve Wanted to Make (vice.com)
Readers share a Motherboard article: There are seemingly two inescapable realities for big-budget filmmakers in 2017: you have to use existing intellectual property and you must provide spectacle that can lure massive domestic and foreign audiences to the the theater. It seemed that Denis Villeneuve chose wisely when he selected the IP that he would ride into the mainstream. [...] There is much to admire, but as a whole, Blade Runner 2049 works best as a case for why filmmakers like Villeneuve should be given big budgets to try out new concepts rather than retread what's come before them. Just like Arrival was at its best when we saw the elegance of how the space ship and the aliens within it actually functioned, this version of Blade Runner shines when we get to watch how Villeneuve's dystopia operates. Moments of technical brilliance small and large are at the soul of this film. Whether you're watching the creation of robot memories, the execution of an air strike from an effortless, detached distance, or even something as simple as a stroll through a hall of records, the mechanics of this world are jaw-dropping. Ryan Gosling (K) wisely opts for a muted, brooding performance, allowing the world to steal the show while still illustrating the burden of living in it. Even with all of this technical brilliance on display (the costumes, sound, and special effects are brilliant), the baggage of the original film's mythology weighs down Blade Runner 2049. The most burdensome baggage for Villeneuve to carry, sadly, is the Blade Runner story itself.
Even with all of this technical brilliance on display (the costumes, sound, and special effects are brilliant), the baggage of the original film's mythology weighs down Blade Runner 2049. The most burdensome baggage for Villeneuve to carry, sadly, is the Blade Runner story itself.
If the story's the biggest issue, couldn't you take the movie, recut the visuals, and redub it? Getting some scenes to match the dialogue would be a problem, but between narration, voiceover, and dubbing, could you insinuate a wholly different story into the filmed material?
Until the following starts. Its clearly a brilliant piece of work. Regardless of the complications of following the cannon. Many of the films of today are NOT following the established universe that made us love them to begin with. STRONG deviations, work 10-20% of the time from what I have seen. Sticking to cannon, and/or at least making an attempt to tie in, while making something totally NEW in that universe... THATS what we really want to see. If you can still be creative from within the box, and when there is no box at all, you'll have forever fans...
What are we supposed to be unhappy about? That it wasn't another baygasm?
I've never been so spellbound by a 2+ hour movie ..
you must provide spectacle that can lure massive domestic and foreign audiences to the the theater
That explains why there are so many terrible movies these days.
No. No. No.
It's a good sequel. Better than anyone could have asked for.
This sequel was a slow rolling dramatic tale and I will say.. IT WORKED.
SPOILERS ahead.
I mean it!! Spoilers ahead!!
Seriously.. SPOILERS.
I have to say.. Spoilers cause spaces are removed.
Yes.. SPOILERs..
1. I loved that every Replicant felt that they were the "One"
2. The death scene at the end was just.. perfect. The falling Snow.
3. Everyone wanted a piece of the Child.. and yet... that is the real human condition... everyone wants to use you.
4. In the end, this is a story about a Dad and a daughter. What they represent, does not matter.
I wanted to cheer the ending as it was.. just perfect.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
wrong demographic
I think they just missed the necessary demographic. I didn't know it was opening this weekend. Who's fault is that?
I knew they were making this, but I didn't care enough to track it closely; there is a lot of stuff on a lot of media competing for attention. Apparently they took it for granted that everyone was breathlessly awaiting their big opening weekend and didn't bother to advertise where someone like myself would notice.
Whatever. The original was a cult thing. Seems like this one is true to form. Maybe that's for the best.
He wanted to do a remake of Frozen!
I've read most of Phillip K. Dicks' works including "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" I have to say that the original Blade Runner was the very definition of "adaptation" when compared with the book that inspired it. The narrative is different on so many levels. They hardly resemble each other. The way the megacorporations are described in the book is much different than the way they are portrayed in the film. There are a large number of missing characters etc... All that aside, I liked both. They were both interesting to me. So is Blade Runner 2049, too. Just judge it on it's own merits. Don't worry about the problems the producers, directors, writers, and actors had. Screw them. They get enough undeserved attention already and will whine about their jobs just like anyone given the chance. I care about the story and the escapism. Don't bring me down telling me what a hard time the poor director had. Cry me a freakin' river. The guy is rich and probably getting laid right now.
I'm a huge Blade Runner fan. One could say it's seminal to my movie-going experience: I'm 50, so from the audience that snuck into theaters to see it (I was 15-16 when it released).
I found BR2049 merely ok. I think there was in fact a good film somewhere in there, but it takes a lot of work to sift it from the dross.
I'm not buying the OP's point that the 'tired old story' was what dragged this down. All of the things that really hurt this film were ALL directorial choices.
- pacing: Villaneuve is suffering George Lucas disease. He needs more people to stop telling him how brilliant he is and give him solid criticism. At 2:40 this thing could have easily been an HOUR shorter. Long, drawn out, frankly dull establishing shots were self-indulgent and just felt like you're watching someone show you the 100th slide of their family vacation. It's interesting at first, but ultimately you just DON'T CARE ANYMORE. It's not THAT cool.
- focus: part of the above, partly its own thing. Don't get me wrong, I've long since gotten past my Ridley Scott fandom (Prometheus? Fuck you Ridley I want my $ back), but a terrific choice he made in the first film is to spend relatively little focus on the tech of the era. Sure it's there, and he can't help but notice, but he's not obsessing over the flying cars, etc like BR2049 did.
- product placement: I don't give a shit if Peugot dumped a pile of $ at you. Stop shoving brands in my face. Better that they'd stuck with the Pan Ams and ATARI of the first film.
- the deafening soundscape: Jesus Christ my ears were nearly bleeding after that. Fire your sound man, immediately.
- pointless plots and characters: Why was Leto even IN this film? As a foil, he did literally nothing except kick a dog (a dog we didn't care at all about, btw, so pointless).
- enormous plot holes - the murder in the police station went rather more smoothly than I'd imagine it would; if replicants reproducing is such a earth-shattering thing why build them with ovaries, or even functional uteruses? I have to imagine engineering OUT the 'rag once a month' would (have been) advantageous to the utility of replicants generally?
- the flying car dogfight? Jesus. I don't know where they were going with Deckard (or why?), but if you're fleeing pursuit, here's hint: turn off the 100k-watt cabin lights that make you a lighthouse? Guns on police flying cars?
The Economist nails it https://www.economist.com/blog... - I'd have used the word ponderous, but bombastic works just as well.
-Styopa
So... did Mr. Villeneuve actually say this wasn't the movie he wanted to make? Am I going crazy or is the author of this rant putting words in Villeneuve's mouth to back up their own opinion about the movie? Their arguments don't even make sense.
I actually read something before where Villeneuve specifically said that there won't be a director's cut, final cut, or any other versions of this movie. We got the exact version he intended us to see, and at nearly 3 hours, that's not hard to believe. The author of this article thinks the movie should have been much shorter (which is obviously what the movie studios and theaters would prefer) while simultaneously suggesting that Villeneuve wasn't in complete creative control here. Again, am I going out of my mind here? What the hell? This should have been titled "'Blade Runner 2049' Isn't the Movie I Wanted Denis Villeneuve to Make".
I think the movie's great. For whatever reason, the author of this didn't agree. Fine. But they're taking what is clearly an opinion piece about them not liking the movie and disguising it as some kind of fact-based informative news article where they present some kind of insight into the director's thinking process. There are no hard facts in this story, just speculation. That is extremely misleading.
And yeah, I think the film is excellent and way better than we had any right to expect. To be brutally honest, given the complete dearth of creativity in Hollywood today, and given the kind of movies and properties that usually find success, and keeping in mind that just a few months ago the same studio released the fucking Emoji Movie... this is a much better film than we deserved. The only thing worth regretting here is that there won't be a third movie given how few tickets were sold (a combination of many factors including long runtime/fewer showings, vague advertising, R rating, older franchise, etc.). That's what we should be mourning here. This movie was great and deserves a followup as it's fairly open-ended and there are clearly more stories to be told about the emancipation movement or Niander Wallace, who didn't get nearly enough screentime. The clueless writer of this article doesn't even mention that in passing -- understandable if it was written last week before the box office returns came in, but it looks like it was published today. Talk about missing the point.
Am I missing some subtle connection between the headline and the summary?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
To be honest compared to the usual themes of modern "mass market" films, Blade Runner 1982 or 2017 is probably too deep for a mass audience. Seriously comic books are considered deep these days.
Most people is prime movie going age don't even know about the original movie, don't know who Harrison Ford is, or know about Philip K. Dick. The 50+ crowd for home the original was canon, probably aren't making a huge effort to see the move opening weekend, and are likely to wait for it to stream.
is reviewer is Millenial or something? It's like he watched a completely different movie. Even goes on to insult Harrison Ford's acting ability - "so committed to phoning it in that the Verizon "Can You Hear Me Now?" guy should fear for his job." :)
If you loved the first movie, you will like this one as well. This movie may not do well because of R rating. They could have easily made PG-13 version, like what we saw in 1990s on regular tv. Regardless, it was worth the 20+ year wait (for me) and hopefully, there will be a third film to wrap things up.
Only negative thing about the movie was how loud the "noise" was - not sure if it's my local theater or if it's designed to make your ears bleed