Blade Runner 2047 Teaser Trailer

The 1950's were the end ofl the contract era in Hollywood and the vast majority of the actors got quality acting, singing, etc. lessons from the top coaches. That trickled down to the TV productions as well. These days, there are many more shows - ~ 500 scripted in the US alone - but everything is horribly watered down compared to the olden days.

The market has changed too. Adults represent a much smaller portion of the audience and the global markets a much larger. Big, dumb action films can play anywhere. Adult drama with decent acting is pretty much confined to TV.
 
DLD said:
lywood and the vast majority of the actors got quality acting, singing, etc. lessons from the top coaches. That trickled down to the TV productions as well. These days, there are many more shows - ~ 500 scripted in the US alone - but everything is horribly watered down compared to the olden days.
Click to expand...

Sorry, DLD, but you're talking bollocks now too (I say that in the nicest possible way:-). The vast majority of movies created by the studio system were the very definition of mediocre. Indeed, many of the 'stars' had little or no formal acting training whatsoever; For e.g. John Wayne started out as a prop man, and got additional work as an extra. And like Wayne, many others started acting after military service or modelling careers, that is why they needed coaching!.

As for your suggestion that shows today are watered down compared to the 50s, do you really think 'I Love Lucy', 'The Adventures of Run Tin Tin' and 'Bonanza' are more cutting edge than 'The Sopranos', 'Breaking Bad', or 'Game of Thrones'?
 
Liam Hall said:
... As for your suggestion that shows today are watered down compared to the 50s, do you really think 'I Love Lucy', 'The Adventures of Run Tin Tin' and 'Bonanza' are more cutting edge than 'The Sopranos', 'Breaking Bad', or 'Game of Thrones'?
Click to expand...
Eh, you're comparing apple and oranges.

But, yes, "I love Lucy" is a lot better than the majority of the modern sitcoms despite often shooting up to 38 episodes per season and the 50's - 60's TV Westerns had better acting and dialog - make it far superior acting and dialog - than most of the current one hour scripted dramas.

And, as a side note, The Sopranos are a grossly overrated show. David Chase's penned episodes were often quite good but they did not maintain the consistency throughout their run and that's while shooting 13 episodes per season.
 
Blade Runner is an unusually beautiful movie that is hard to match even today. That's because what made it great was not technology. It was spearheaded by an unusually gifted director. Ridley Scott drew and painted as a child, went to the Royal College of Art, worked as a set designer for the BBC, worked on hundreds of commercials. Blade Runner was just his third feature, but by then he was in his mid-forties and had a ton of experience in filmmaking and art in general.

Besides his experience, Scott is bossy. For example, he wasn't afraid to tell the set decorators that they had installed the columns right-side-up, instead of upside-down like he had told them. So he made them do it over again.

BR-4.jpg

Finally, he was still trying to prove himself, so I think he was working harder. There is a stage in most directors' careers where they make their best work, usually at about 1/3 into it. At that point they have amassed a good amount of experience, but they are also pushing themselves to the limit to make the very best movie they can. For example, in Alien Scott did things like go buy some animal organs from the market for a close-up of the inside of the egg in Alien (or something like that). In general I'm talking about hard work: running around, doing a lot of extra things, working late, getting up early, neglecting personal life, pushing yourself to the limit. Films from directors in this stage have an extra texture. It's hard to explain. It just feels like it has more character, detail, life, energy. After a few years of being told he's a genius, most directors start to take it easy. They think the movie will turn out great just because they're there, when really at least a third of the reason was how hard they worked.

---

The stunning look of Blade Runner is from a combination of great lighting and great set design.

So to see how this new film might compare, we might look at the past work of the corresponding crew members:

Director: Denis Villeneuve
Director of Photography: Roger Deakins
Production Designer: Dennis Gassner
Set Decorator: Alessandra Querzola
Costume Designer: Renee April
Music: Johann Johannsson

Based on this, you might be led to believe that Blade Runner 2047 is going to feel a lot like Sicario or Skyfall. But all in all each of these crew members have an impressive list of films to their credit, with variety, like Big Fish, A Beautiful Mind, and The Truman Show.

All of their films are nice to look at, but none of them jump out to me like Blade Runner did. But then again, what other film does, except maybe another film by Ridley Scott?

That being said, Blade Runner is not a perfect movie. It's kind of slow, isn't it? And then it just gets kind of weird toward the end, the way many of Ridley Scott's films do. Ridley is a great lighting and set designer, but at that time he wasn't as good at telling stories through cinema: where the camera angles, editing, and music all come together with great drive. Steven Spielberg comes to mind, but I think John McTiernan might be a little better, at least early in his career, like with Die Hard and The Hunt for Red October.


I don't know. Alien was actually very good in this regard. But Blade Runner and 1492 feel kind of static. But then he seemed to get better again with Gladiator and Matchstick Men. So he's a little uneven.

Another point to look at is the writer. The sequel is written by the same person who wrote the original, Hampton Fancher, so that's good. But besides Blade Runner he hasn't written much at all, so that's kind of scary. It is cowritten by Michael Green, who has written a lot of TV. So it could go either way. It's really hard to predict.

Basically I don't think it's going to look as extraordinary as the original Blade Runner. It will look nice though. It all depends on how the screenplay is. Harrison Ford offers this endorsement, that it's the best one he's ever had.
 
Last edited:
Sure, you can bring in various people, talented people, but it really ultimately comes down to the director. It's not like the role of the director ends with picking key people. You have to, you know, um... give direction. You are responsible for the overall effect. It takes a certain kind of mind to be able to grasp and organize a production to give you the results you are looking for. Otherwise, it all comes down to chance. I have zero faith in Villeneuve, because his films (the two I've seen: Prisoner and Sicario) show me the kind of mind he has: devoid of depth and talent. Bringing in Deakin means nothing IMHO. As I pointed out in that big Sicario thread on this forum, as a director you still need to give cogent direction to the DP - as is, while Deakin did a great job lighting, it was not artistically consistent, and veered from gritty realistic to film noir arty, utterly mixed up, and that's down to the director who has the overall vision. It's not enough to have a talented set designer, if the director has no consistent vision, or simply doesn't understand what is required to have the set design serve the story. Any producer can pick top pros and talent to throw at a film - but that by itself is not enough to direct. Villenueve fails in the most important way: as a director.
 
Just because Hampton Fancher's name has not appeared on many credit lists doesn't mean he has not been a busy boy for these passing decades, being paid huge money to do rewrites of all sorts of work. It might not lead to lasting fame, but it sure makes him a truckload of cash. And when you're diving into a script to fix its structural and character problems, it can be quite rewarding creatively.
 
I'm disappointed they don't seem to be shooting anamorphic. That was an integral part of Blade Runner's visuals for me. Not surprised as Deakins hates anamorphic lenses. Too much distortion for his taste.
 
Not sure how much control Villeneuve had over major casting. He would have input but may or may not have final word on leads.
 
DLD said:
The 1950's were the end of the contract era in Hollywood and the vast majority of the actors got quality acting, singing, etc. lessons from the top coaches.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely the truth and NOT "Bollocks". Read or watch interviews with any of the talent (directors, writers, actors) that worked at MGM between 1930 and 1950 or at Warners between 1940 and 1950 (not so much Universal). Most of this support was handled at the studio, but when not available, the studio would farm out things like "dialog coaching" to off site vendors.
This remembrance by Gregory Peck doesn't apply to the studio's creative support, but to things like medical, public relations, travel, education, etc. support (almost exclusively on-site): when the courts ordered the separation of the studios from the talent (i.e. actors and directors) and the distribution of their films, the first day it went into effect in the 50's, most of the actors had no idea what to do or how to handle their own lives. Up to that point, almost EVERYTHING had been handled by the studios. However, I realize that doesn't address when the best pictures were created: before the 50's vs after the 50's.
 
cyclone said:
... This remembrance by Gregory Peck doesn't apply to the studio's creative support, but to things like medical, public relations, travel, education, etc. support (almost exclusively on-site): ...
Click to expand...
Let's not forget the fixers either.
 
I'm definitely seeing this in the theatre!

The trailer had me alternating between "wow!" and "no!"

Biggest worry is still Denis Villeneauve and Roger Deakins.

And the one that forgot to tell Harrison Fort to get in his costume and let him keep his t-shirt on after his nap in the trailer should have been fired ;)
 
The original had its distinct visuals, which still hold up to this day, on top of a top notch narrative storytelling. This just looks like a run-of-the-mill futuristic action flick.

But it's just a trailer, right?

PS. Robin Wright was my celebrity crush during her old "Santa Barbara" days. Only three decades ago. I met her during the Christmas shopping season of 1988. I just sat there, kind of like a short-circuited replicant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top