Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 70
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member soarprod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Costa Mesa /OC /California
    Posts
    1,788
    Default
    I don’t think your too far off the mark. Seemed flat / dull looking. Where is the vibrant world of Dune? The desert is one of the most beautiful places on Earth and I always imagined it much better then this.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldCorpse View Post
    Hmm. Are we watching the same trailer? It looks like sh|t to me. Absolute garbage. Now, I'm not a fan of the director, and I've predicted utter failure for BR2049 when it was first announced, and subsequently I was proven right - did a long review of it here too, after it came out. I personally think DV is a director with zero talent, and I've gotten into the reasons why in the Sicario thread, and just based on that, I predicted BR2049 would be a major FAIL when it was first announced he was going to direct - you are welcome to see my prediction and how it subsequently turned out. Now seeing this trailer, you can already see what's afoot.

    Don't you see just how utterly of its time this is? It's like every bad Sci-fi movie out there of the past few years. Regardless of what you look at, even acting - same dull glum acting without imagination, everything one-note "serious". And the effects? Embarrasing. Like there's been no progress - flat "blue electric" razzle dazzle we saw done back in the 70's with Star Wars, and the cgi feels no more than what we've seen in the LOTR movies. Abysmal framing (a DV specialty) and flat-footed staging and of course all the characters on screen distributed like a 5-year old playing GI-Joe on the kindergarten floor. Atrocious. Music in the trailer is a clunker too.

    Looks like it'll be another tedious hours-overlong fap in the BR2049 humiliating tradition. The director is a hack, and the trailer reflects that.

    Of course, it's just my opinion, and obviously others may see it completely differently - no sweat. For the final judgment we'll await for the film. YMMV.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member Mark Williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Deep South, U.S.
    Posts
    1,177
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by soarprod View Post
    I donít think your too far off the mark. Seemed flat / dull looking. Where is the vibrant world of Dune? The desert is one of the most beautiful places on Earth and I always imagined it much better then this.
    In the original it was flat and dull as it was a place that could kill you. It was not portrayed in the book as a beautiful place. The trailer looked "true" to the original movie look.
    Regards,

    Mark

    GH5, Panasonic 12-60, 14-45, 45-175, Olympus 60 macro, 75-300, Benro S6 Tripod, Rhino Carbon 24" Slider, and Edius 8.5 WG.
    Video channel: https://vimeo.com/channels/3523
    Stock Video: https://www.pond5.com/artist/mark29#1/2063


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,491
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCorpse View Post
    Hmm. Are we watching the same trailer? It looks like sh|t to me. Absolute garbage.
    This shot looks pretty dope to me:

    Screenshot_20200913-234346_YouTube.jpg

    Honestly, one of the things I reacted to most was the pacing. I can't stand these hyperactive blockbusters that cut too quickly and give you no time to breathe. This film seems more stately.

    This scene also looked pretty and I wouldn't call it generic:

    Screenshot_20200913-234306_YouTube.jpg

    Screenshot_20200913-234327_YouTube.jpg

    My biggest issue was I thought some of the costumes should have looked more weathered.

    Villeneuve is definitely not a hack. I didnt think that BR2049 had as good a story as the original and I thought it was too pretty whereas Cronenworth embraced an amazingly ugly aesthetic that really worked. But I still thought that BR2049 was a good movie. I thought that some scenes and story points were great.

    Some of his other movies like Sicario I thought were totally fine. Good movies. Didnt necessarily blow me away but didn't bore me either.

    I loved Arrival. It felt like what Interstellar should have been. More emphasis on character. It had a nice novel take on alien life. And a nice central conceit about circular language and time that was silly but managed to hold together. Unlike (for me) Interstellar. And I thought it was beautiful.

    Christopher Nolan is the one who has become a hack, if you ask me.

    I just want the story done well. The blue personal shields didnt wow me but I'm not sure what those would actually look ike.

    Oh PS I forgot that Villeneuve directed Prisoners, which I liked and was very good-looking
    Last edited by ahalpert; 09-13-2020 at 09:09 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member Eric Coughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,385
    Default
    Blade Runner 2049 was the only Villeneuve movie I didn't care for, and that's mostly because of the writing. I saw the movie and I barely remember what it was about. He is kind of a discount Nolan, just like Peter Berg is sort of a discount Michael Bay. Nothing wrong with being a discount as long as the discount is still good. I thought Enemy was good, Arrival was quite good, Incendiaries was really good, Prisoners was great, Sicario was great. The trailer for Dune looks good; let's hope it has better writing than Blade Runner.

    Originality can be overrated. Better to do something that is good but not original than something that is original but bad.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,491
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Coughlin View Post
    . The trailer for Dune looks good; let's hope it has better writing than Blade Runner.

    Originality can be overrated. Better to do something that is good but not original than something that is original but bad.
    Dune is relying on a complex story we already like. That is a major advantage.

    "Originality" versus "good/bad"... I just dont want to be bored. Sometimes something is good and unoriginal but boring for the same reason. Or it might be entertaining. Depends on the specifics.

    If you're original, at least you're surprising. That is an edge against boredom.

    I think Nolan has jumped the shark. I dont think Villeneuve is Nolan. Villeneuve is more like Fincher. Fincher is better but perhaps more experienced

    Oh PS Eric - the main throughline in BR2049 was Gosling the replicant getting involved in a replicant rebellion. a fine idea, if you ask me, and in the spirit of the original. There were just a lot of details and scenes that didn't captivate me like the original did. Plus, Ford was better than Gosling


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Default
    Denis Villeneuvre isn't my favorite director. I think he deadens his actors and material, just like Stanley Kubrick did and David Fincher does. In return, from these directors you get languid, well-composed camerawork --- which I agree with ahalpert is in contrast to some modern camerawork that is frenetic and unstructured. I don't see whatever OldCorpse sees, calling Villeneuvre a hack and his camerawork mediocre. (I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not discerning it.) To me, his camerawork is his only redeeming quality, even though it's still not my favorite style. I prefer structure but something more dynamic, like John McTiernan. Even Gordon Willis had more energy.

    I've seen three of his past films: Sicario, Arrival, and Blade Runner 2049. Blade Runner is the only one with a good script. The others are fatally flawed. I go into detail in the thread for Arrival.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,491
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by combatentropy View Post
    Denis Villeneuvre isn't my favorite director. I think he deadens his actors and material, just like Stanley Kubrick did and David Fincher does...

    I've seen three of his past films: Sicario, Arrival, and Blade Runner 2049. Blade Runner is the only one with a good script. The others are fatally flawed. I go into detail in the thread for Arrival.
    Fincher is one of the best directors working today. always solid. what about Eps 1 and 2 of House of Cards? Kubrick would have benefited greatly from Fincher's ability to direct actors.

    I enjoyed Arrival very much on a basic narrative pleasure level. I went along with the story and the characters. I felt it. I bought it. It sparked my curiosity and imagination. and I'm a guy who loves to hate on movies. But one's reaction to a movie is 100% subjective and perhaps partially arbitrary or subject to external factors (for example, I bring a higher standard to hyped up tentpoles like LOTR or Inception).


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Rockin the Boat
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles CA
    Posts
    2,942
    Default
    I don't see whatever OldCorpse sees, calling Villeneuvre a hack and his camerawork mediocre.

    Well, no sense in repeating myself - I broke down, in exhaustive and comprehensive detail, why I think his camerawork is garbage in the Sicario thread to which I linked (see, if interested). I don't think it's a matter of opinion - I demonstrated point by point by point by point. But whatever, most people don't pay attention to camera work - and I've noticed, often not even DPs who often have no idea how the camerawork impacts the telling of the story, the mood etc., a limitation of artistic judgment, IMHO. Be that as it may, there is just so very much wrong with DV as a director that camerawork is almost the least of it.

    This shot looks pretty dope to me:

    OK, I look at that shot and my eyes glaze over with boredom. What is wrong with it - zero idea of emotional impact. You show scale IN THE WRONG WAY (emotionally) - yes, we get the idea of size, but it has all the emotional impact of a papermache model on a table. The camera should be lower closer to the humans with that object looming over the horizon - and you never ever cut to a birdseye, ever in this sequence - and you start to get the idea of being closer to the humans emotionally because you're right there with them physically looking at the object from their point of view and feeling what they're feeling. That way it also looks far more threatening. But if I'm looking at it from a POV of safety - birdseye - there is not a visceral reaction. I'm not threatened and I don't identify with the people, the people are like models (like GI-Joe figurines on a playroom floor). It is utter SH|T. That shot is not dope, it's dopey. It's clueless. It's a cartoon approach that's permeated movies in the last few years and not to the benefit of the medium. Keep comics drawn and film filmed - a different aesthetic is necessary to achieve your goals. I'm sad that so many filmmakers don't appear to understand it.

    This scene also looked pretty and I wouldn't call it generic:

    What can I say, it looks to me like the aesthetics that were ripped right out of a run of the mill video game. DV - and to be fair, a great many directors out there - just has no artistic judgment. He films sets. He doesn't understand that sets frame people. Instead he has sets and then he inserts figurines into them - his actors. This has the effect of play-acting, it removes us emotionally. We don't ever feel viscerally connected to the heroes to the degree necessary to propel us forward with the story. The heroes don't go through the environment, the environment happens to the actors. It's a visual variant of the old sermon given to screenwriters - don't have events just happen to your hero, the hero must be an *active* agent who propels the action, otherwise you get a passive feeling hero. All of the actors in this scenario have a subtext of passivity due to how they're shown - and don't get me going about the cutting rhythms which are an abomination in a film like BR2049. The man does not know how to escalate tension and emotional velocity as the film climaxes, so it never climaxes. I don't know what's wrong with DV, I suspect he just doesn't even know what it is that he doesn't know, so he can't even seek help from his collaborators. But hey, ultimately, you can blame executives who task a man so clearly out of his depth with a budget and project of the size and prestige like a followup to Blade Runner - I mean box office should not be your sole and only guide in picking directors for projects... sadly, this is what happens in hollywood, and the results are in, you get DV put on projects like BR2049 and Dune. What a waste - and destined to fail.


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,491
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCorpse View Post
    This shot looks pretty dope to me:

    OK, I look at that shot and my eyes glaze over with boredom. What is wrong with it - zero idea of emotional impact. You show scale IN THE WRONG WAY (emotionally) - yes, we get the idea of size, but it has all the emotional impact of a papermache model on a table. The camera should be lower closer to the humans with that object looming over the horizon - and you never ever cut to a birdseye, ever in this sequence - and you start to get the idea of being closer to the humans emotionally because you're right there with them physically looking at the object from their point of view and feeling what they're feeling. That way it also looks far more threatening. But if I'm looking at it from a POV of safety - birdseye - there is not a visceral reaction. I'm not threatened and I don't identify with the people, the people are like models (like GI-Joe figurines on a playroom floor). It is utter SH|T. That shot is not dope, it's dopey. It's clueless. It's a cartoon approach that's permeated movies in the last few years and not to the benefit of the medium. Keep comics drawn and film filmed - a different aesthetic is necessary to achieve your goals. I'm sad that so many filmmakers don't appear to understand it.
    There's more than one way to skin a cat. at any rate, I appreciated the beauty of the CGI effect and the shot as a whole and how it wasn't overwrought. The shot was not overly complicated and it was held long enough to drink in the details. We got an accurate sense of the immense scale next to the humans, which is only possible from a distance. By this shot, I think they have escaped the danger. Here were 2 preceding shots while they were still running:

    Screenshot_20200914-013735_YouTube.jpg

    Screenshot_20200914-013727_YouTube.jpg

    This scene also looked pretty and I wouldn't call it generic:

    What can I say, it looks to me like the aesthetics that were ripped right out of a run of the mill video game. DV - and to be fair, a great many directors out there - just has no artistic judgment. He films sets. He doesn't understand that sets frame people. Instead he has sets and then he inserts figurines into them - his actors. This has the effect of play-acting, it removes us emotionally. We don't ever feel viscerally connected to the heroes to the degree necessary to propel us forward with the story. The heroes don't go through the environment, the environment happens to the actors.
    This doesn't look at all like a generic sci-fi approach to me. I think the scene conveys the refinement of royalty but also the captivity of inescapable destiny, of being put upon.

    The issue is not whether a scene/aesthetic has been employed before, but only if it is the perfect choice for the scene at hand. In this scene, the character is rather passive/submissive.
    Last edited by ahalpert; 09-13-2020 at 11:19 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member Batutta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Planet 10
    Posts
    7,553
    Default
    The word hack has been thrown around and abused so much, at this point, all it means is the work of someone you don't like. A hack is someone who works primarily for a pay check, aiming for the lowest common denominator commercial success and who only puts in the laziest, most formulaic and unrefined effort. It's a derivative of hackneyed. Like him or hate him I wouldn't call Villienueve a hack. He aims for a more cerebral, refined style, tackles serious stories and themes and takes a serious approach to his craft. How well he accomplishes those goals is up for debate.
    "Money doesn't make films...You just do it and take the initiative." - Werner Herzog


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •