Scott has spoken with IGN just days ahead of Blade Runner‘s 35th anniversary this weekend — Sunday...

Did anybody actually watch the (((sequel)))? Because I already forgot it happened.

What?

the first thing i noticed even from the teaser was that it looked too clean and both the lighting AND the color seemed flat and not nearly as varied or thoughtful as it needs to be. there are literally no intriguing combinations of either in any of the shots, no nuance at all, so now the fact that it looks too clean and the texture is fucked stands out even more because the visual style is just aped from the first one but in the most lazy/reductive (muh blue, muh orange, some purple, shadows, and we're good!) way imaginable. all of the base elements are there but they're used terribly, least imaginative way, so theres nothing REALLY to catch your eye. it doesn't even look like they're trying to create the illusion of depth in some of these images.

just sad.. deakins is literally dying before our eyes every time he uses that stupid fucking arri alexa. its pretty clear at this point that denis is a hack too though i wish he had bradford young for this movie instead of arrival, but oh well. im almost sure the story will be flat regurgitated tropes that present a mere illusion of depth (just like all of villeneuves work) while not quite succeeding or striking the right balance and it will end up failing the original to the extent that it will have to be considered non-canon by the originals fans to avoid the wreckage.

12 months ago i was cautiously optimistic too (and i still think the acting except for maybe leto and also johann johannsons score will be fine) but this was always going to either be a hit or a miss, no in between, and there are now too many indicators of it being a miss to ignore.

Does he mean making those boring prequels, or letting Disney make even worse sequels? Oh, he meant milking the cow until the end of time, ok.

Also having Harrison Ford reprise his role destroys the idea that Deckard is a replicant because they don't live long enough to age. Not that this fan hypothesis is clever but just highlights why this is a bad idea for cinema.

That was Scott's idea in the first place.

I can't wait to hear the in-universe origin for the blade runners, and the intriguing backstory for the creator of the replicants.
This will truly expand my enjoyment of the original blade runner.

what i don't get is why they thought a Blade Runner sequel was worth doing. Sure, it's a pretty nicely contained story and expounding upon it is shit, but from a business standpoint it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Blade Runner never appealed to everyone and has always been a bit of a cult hit. People like or they don't, it doesn't really have mass appeal for a franchise.

Marketing is only thing that matters and using existing IP makes marketing easy. Paying audiences have been proven to be extremely easy to convince to think they have always been a fan of something supposedly prestigeous or at least that they should have been fans all along.

if its like total recall 2070 then ill be fucking stoked

IGN is trying to get their foot in the movie reporting beat now too? How disgusting.

I can't quite put my finger on why all new science fiction films look so bland. There's just something about say Star Wars, Blade Runner, Alien and so on that makes them feel lived in and a part of a larger world. New films doesn't manage to capture that at all.

CGI has maybe ruined it?

It's CG and what said.

This to be honest. Models and practical effects may not be as cost effective as cgi but the quality can be astounding and ageless in some cases.

A lot of people seem to have this idea now that the future is supposed to look like an Apple product. Clean, sleek, minimalist. It's gotten pretty boring to look at after more than a decade of it.

HE SAY YOU BRADE LUNNER MISTER DICKHARD

...

That film actually looked great though, it had a pretty unique visual identity. Sure it was sleek but it was cohesive.

While models, real sets and practical stuff will always look better than CG I don't think you can attribute it to that entirely. I think it has more to do with how it is used than that it is used.

...

I think it has a lot to do with digital editing and the "not quite real" feeling it causes in viewers who grew up watching films filmed on……..film.
It's similar to the way that music made entirely with analog gear and recorded to tape sounds more "alive" and "3d" to anyone whose ears still work.

I'm going to say it's mostly lazy uninspired visual design. There was tons of attention to detail in all those three you mentioned, but not so much in their recent sequels.

Damn shame the plot was such utter dreck

Syd Mead, Ralph McQuarrie, H. R. Giger, inspiration from comics back when they were great, real film, real sets and miniatures, autistic amount of details… The world the characters in those films inhabit are also as important as the characters themselves, not so in most modern science fiction which is much more character focused.

Is Total Recall 2070 good?

I feel bad for CG artists because what they do is hard, but everyone considers it trivial. Considering the range of environments you can get in games, I really think it's what they are asked to implement rather than the technology itself. The big problem in movies is that all the creative people are gone. It's not a meritocracy anymore but based on who you know. The cinematographer is probably some guy who spitroasted a twink with Ian McKellen at one of Singer's pool parties.

Directors should not be allowed near their previous work after a certain amount of time has passed.
Perhaps 4-8 years.

These mentally ill retards chopping up old stuff to make money and advertise a previous concept so they somehow stay relevant, is poo poo.

yeah. It's very cyberpunk and since its not in hd the sets and effects still hold up. the whole hardass cop / robot partner thing is going strong in it so that recent scifi detective show on fox with dredd in it obviously cripped off of this. The total recall part isnt super focused besides the fact that there is a megacorp that has the memory tech that is a major part of the overarching plot

This actually seems pretty cool. Thanks.

Can't Hollywood just admit it wants the stupid goyim to keep watching the same shit, and that all movies are franchises?

used to work for special effects software company, it was incredible how many brilliant and driven people were working together, but every year they'd release a demo reel of the best use of the software in ads and movies, was pretty depressing. technically brilliant but completely hollow and pointless. guy maddin's papier-maché sets were more effective and got the job done.

Except most major movies are still shot on 35mm film.

Hollywood's always been like that.

Then most of them are fucked with in post production because theres no other explanation

It's not post production; movies have been being cut in AVID for more than 20 years now. It's just how art design is utilized and conceived, and over the years no one has tried cultivating or finding any more HR Gigers or Mobiuses to contribute any unique aesthetic to movies.

You can partially blame video games. So many movies have art design that look like table scraps from a sci fi shooter. I remember seeing Avatar and thinking the space marines and their tech looked like it was borrowing too much from Halo or some shit.

I think (( (they) )) used to hire a few talented people once upon a time who would make good movies. I think now they don't care.

There are still a couple of them hired but yea 5 or 10 or 15 out of 2000 means nothing

They use AVID? I have that shit, but I don't know how to work it at all

Avid Media Composer, despite being buggy as shit, is best used when you have a team of editors and assistant editors working on a big budgeted project like film or TV, hence why it's used in Hollywood.

You're better off uninstalling it and using premiere if you're just editing video by yourself.
t. editor

Are you saying video games have sucked up the talent or has the pipeline for cultivating the HR Gigers been destroyed?

Definitely the latter, because I sure can't remember the last time a known artist got top billing as a major influence in a film's art direction. As for games, it just seems like executives look to them for art direction instead of looking at the work of actual artists, because video games have been a major past time for kids and teenagers, and they've always been viewed as a lucrative demographic for box office revenue.

It's the attention to detail, as some people have already said
anyone blaming it all on CG is retarded; it's not an overuse of technology that's the problem, but an underuse of creativity

...