I guess you would prefer Ridley to do it ? Prometheus, Alien Covenant... what a great idea that was.
Film Blade Runner 2049
- Thread starter CassiusClaymore
- Start date
-
Hello, Guest! We have four new competitions (with taglines and awards as prizes) starting.
A new Odds or Evens competition is starting now. Click here to read the rules and message Damien to submit your eight players by 14th September 2024
A new Carabao Cup prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for round 3 which begins 17th September.
A new Champions League prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for the first round which begins 17th September.
A new Europa League prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for the first round which begins 25th September.
For Odds or Evens you have until the 14th September to submit your players. Submissions will be open for the next 7 days, 17 hours, 30 minutes, 22 seconds, and will close on Sep 14, 2024 at 12:30. -
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) get the depressing job of reviewing United's 3-0 loss at Old Trafford to Liverpool. They discuss what went wrong, Casemiro's day to forget, and the pressure now on Erik Ten Hag. They also take some time to give McTominay a proper farewell, and give their overall thoughts on the Summer Transfer Window.
Didn't say that.
When Villeneuve was announced I actually had high hopes (Sicario is one of my favorite films). Having Ridley Scott helm the sequel would have probably been a disaster, he tried his best to butcher the original.
I am just disappointed with the film and I don't believe it deserves the reviews it has had.
This is exactly why it deserve some positive feedback. They didn't focus on going the safe way with cashing in and they paid the price as it bombed at a box office, but what you get in result is a legit sequel showing actual consequences of enviromental disaster of previous civilization from the first movie.
I get it, it's nothing that special but wait till they make a new Indiana Jones movie... That should seal the deal for me not to go to cinema ever again.
In what way?
What's wrong with the final cut, though? The theatrical version is dumb, Ford doing a voiceover purposefully badly because he thought it was a bad idea and a crammed in happy ending that they nicked footage from the Shining for. Doing the final cut after the "director's" cut was more tinkering but I think he'd farmed it out the previous time and wanted to do it himself.
So many versions. I do like the final cut though. The first film is fine, it's just this one isn't all that.
This is a lazy argument imo. Ridley Scott should have definitely directed it. The original was a visual masterpiece. None of Villeneuve's works is on the same level. Don't get me wrong. His films are really good. But visually, you just cannot compare any of Villeneuve's work with Ridley Scott's early films.
The sequel's premise wasn't to be better but to continue consequences from a first movie and connect it. This thing is so obvious that first movie is better and more iconic, I don't even know why you bring that up... Besides, Ridley Scott's early films were about 30 years ago. The argument that he should direct new Blade Runner because his early movies were were great is jumping the shark.
Not really. Like I said, I think it is a lazy argument. If you are going to compare two directors, you should rank them by their best films. Ridley's best films are miles ahead of Villeneuve's. I still think he should have directed the sequel, for the same reasons Cameron should have directed the latter terminator films. These films lack purpose without their creator at the helm.
Last edited:
Cameron also directed sequel to Scott's Alien and surprise, surprise, it wasn't that bad at all. There's no hard rule who should contrinue with directing someone's material. Lucas giving Empire Strikes Back to Kershner destroys the idealistic view of creators having uber exclusivity. If Scott wanted to make a sequel he should really push for it a long time ago, same goes to Lucas. They should all get over it, especially after so many years.
Couldn't care less who's a better director, now. It's a fanboy shit.
The last Terminators were bad because they had hack writers and hack directors. Villeneuve isn't at Scott's prime level but he's far from a hack. And for me at least, 2049 was great visually. Had problems elsewhere but none with that.
This basically negates whatever you said previously.
As for your fanbois argument, it is lazy at best. The results are out there for everyone to see. Only time will tell how the sequel will fare in comparison to the original.
Last edited:
i wouldn't disagree that Scott defiantly has more incredible films in his back catalogue, but the only really good film he has done in recent times is the Martian(which was great) but apart from that the last film i loved by him was possibly Gladiator.
Also the mess he is making with the Alien Franchise i'm glad he was not directing 2049.
You need to simply get over the fact Scott didn't direct the sequel. It happens, especially in that industry.
Oh I thought only time will tell. Seems like you already judged it... very lazy approach, entropy. Very lazy.
I never said Villeneuve was a hack. Each director brings his/her own skillset to a particular project. Often, it turns out to be a mismatch. As for your point about the Terminator films, those films would have been lot better with Cameron at the helm.
To be honest, 2049 lacked that great antagonist with a backstory Hauer provided with such powerful lines.
Jared Leto done some... questionable things in this movie.
Don't worry, old Scott got some new plans for Alien. You'll love it... hopefully. I wouldn't mind a horrifying Alien sequel/prequel tbh.
While I understand your argument, each of those films belong to a different genre. I don't know if it does full justice to his wide range of work. People are quick to forget that Blade Runner wasn't a hit when it first came out. One of the many reasons I love Blade Runner is the minimal use of dialogue. I would have loved to see that again, instead of the hammy backstory/excessive plot version we got now.
Last edited:
Yup, was weak. It was like they went "gimme Tyrell but more evil and blind." And it was too long, and the rebel replicants were boring. A CGI Rachael was a war crime.
But visually, great!
They would, but they also could've been with a great many other writers and directors.
Off topic but just saw there are four Avatar sequels in production and I wanna vom.
Sure. There will always be that argument. Some random writer/director out there could have made a great Terminator film. I will take one good Terminator film over all the sequel/prequel avatar films.
Rebels came bit from nowhere, almost forced but this revolution they're starting could lead to some ideas for a third movie, but of course now that it bombed at box office...
It was hinted at a few times through the film though but it was done with dialogue rather than visually showing them from what I can remember.
I think this will be a film that people will grow to like and appreciate after a few viewings. I've watched a few youtube videos analyzing the film and would like to watch it again and see if I agree with them.
It reminded me a bit of Equilibrium with Bale. Protagonist is a mindless machine then something snaps in him and becoming an instrument of revolution with whole empathy for others.
Definitely few more viewings on the way, almost three hours is a lot to register. Ana de Armas was great to watch, too.
I'm not impressed by Villeneuve to be honest.
Me neither tbh... Previous films have underwhelmed me. This was alright but it is being exaggerated and I suspect opinions will normalize over time.
For those unimpressed by Villeneuve, which contemporary American directors are currently exciting you?
I still haven't seen this yet.
I still haven't seen this yet.
Tommy Wiseau.
Shit hair. No thanks.
Not sure if this had been talked about previously from an earlier interview, but just came across this (typically entertaining) one from Scott which has a little aside about 2049 and the original - http://www.vulture.com/2017/12/ridley-scott-all-the-money-in-the-world-reshoots.html
Relevant bit:
Kind of obvious just from the films but hadn't seen it confirmed by one of the creators anywhere.
Relevant bit:
So, are we believing him?
Jesus all of the fecking product placement in this movie New James Bond tier really.
New James Bond tier really.Jesus all of the fecking product placement in this movie
Ha. Diageo must have paid a pretty penny. Sony too (though they distribute the movie in the UK so that one makes sense)
Thought it was brilliant, but tarnished from the uprising bit, it was totally unneeded. That and i wasn't convinced about who turned out to be the child.
Nothing. Nothing at all.
Ford denies this but it still could be true. It is a better film without the voice-over but the original was much better than we give it credit for now. The voiceover was done in a classic noir Sam Spade style which worked with the visual style of the film even if it wasn't necessary.
Yes. Very silly.
He didn't have time to edit the Director's Cut so it was done according to his written instructions and most notably the voice-over and happy ending were removed. The Final Cut was tweaked, digitally remastered and the vital unicorn dream that made the origami unicorn more meaningful was added.
I liked it, but it wasn't really all that great.
Guess it looks nice, but the original was much more atmospheric for me. Scott and Vangelis had something to do with that. I miss Scott and Vangelis, and will have to do something to correct that. Yes, indeed, it's 1492 time!
Guess it looks nice, but the original was much more atmospheric for me. Scott and Vangelis had something to do with that. I miss Scott and Vangelis, and will have to do something to correct that. Yes, indeed, it's 1492 time!
I thought it was brilliant and I thought they dealt with who was the child really well indeed. The uprising may not have strictly been needed in one sense but but it was great in that it displayed the needs and desires of applicants from another viewpoint, was the perfect way to reveal to K that he was mistaken about the identity of the child and also (I suspect) is intended to be a big part of any third film.
My problem with it was that the original and for most of the sequel, its brilliance is that the actual story is such a tiny fragment of what is such a vast universe, where humanity has begun to colonise the stars and theres this enourmus backdrop to it, but our glimse of it is through the eyes of a very insignificant character/characters in the grand scheme of things and thats what makes it so charming to me. i think this whole "replicant uprising" tangient takes away from that a bit. Especially when its not fleshed out in the slightest, and from my perspective rightly so. Im there to enjoy the spectacularly gritty distopian visuals and identify with the lowly characters as they go about their life in this giant universe, not to envision a scenario of epic proportions and scope, when really thats not what makes the story great.
Don't think that'll happen unfortunately, this one bombed too hard.