combatentropy
Veteran
When you mention Michael Jackson and racism, this is all I can think of. Sorry. Even more off topic, but . . . 80s?
Blade Runner 2049
- Thread starter roxics
- Start date
When you mention Michael Jackson and racism, this is all I can think of. Sorry. Even more off topic, but . . . 80s?
Why wasn't Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall, Part, II" played on the FM radio?
What was the market segmentation on the US AM/FM radio scene?
Did MTV play any country? Jazz? Classical? Easy Listening?
Anyway, Mitch, I've seen your Twitter account. We are at the opposite ends on the politico-ideological spectrum. I'll leave it at that.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Hey, I'm not trying to get into any sort of political discussion. CBS and Michael Jackson himself were very consciously trying to move him into the pop category, but MTV refused the notion. Even though much of Jackson's previous album "Off the Wall" was a huge international seller (20M sold), with it making Jackson the first solo artist to land four singles off one album in the top 10 ofBillboard's Hot 100 chart, MTV still did not consider him pop. When Thriller came out the second single (after "The Girl is Mine" duet with Paul McCartney) was "Billie Jean" and it was literally the number one song on the Hot 100 charts yet MTV still refused. It was as pop as pop could be. The story of CBS Records President Walter Yetnikoff is pretty well known and has been reported in numerous places. Here it is again in a cited reference on the Billie Jean Wikipedia page:
'Walter Yetnikoff, the president of Jackson's record company CBS Records, approached MTV about playing the "Billie Jean" video, which MTV had not ever played in spite of Jackson's success as a musical artist. Yetnikoff became enraged when MTV refused to play the video, and he threatened to go public with MTV's stance on racial discrimination. "I said to MTV, 'I'm pulling everything we have off the air, all our product. I'm not going to give you any more videos. And I'm going to go public and ****ing tell them about the fact you don't want to play music by a black guy.'"[1]'
Anyway, it's not just me. And it wasn't just Yetnikoff back in 1983. Here's a pretty amazing bit from an interview MTV VJ Mark Goodman did with David Bowie back then prior to Michael Jackson appearing on the channel. One can't place all the blame on poor Mark Goodman's shoulder's, but he does fairly clearly present the network's position at the time. The reasoning is quite revealing, and Bowie totally nails it. Note that this video link is actually posted by MTV News itself, so that's some interesting positioning these days:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZGiVzIr8Qg
So not trying to be political, just pointing out what many others have noted in the history of MTV. After Michael Jackson the network's popularity skyrocketed and it quickly became profitable when it has been losing money steadily before. The format changed, expanding to various types of music, all in search of what was popular as opposed to what was strictly rock & roll. Imagine if at the time there was a huge country crossover artist so popular that her songs and videos would be on the top of the pop music charts as well as country, and she quickly became the number one music act in the world. Can you imagine MTV refusing to air Taylor Swift?
Batutta
Major Contributor
I honestly find your hatred for Villeneueve to be a little extreme. I can understand finding flaws in his work, and disliking them. But at the very least he is a filmmaker trying to make interesting films that aren't insulting to the audience. I reserve my hatred for filmmakers who make crassly commercial, brain dead, flashy films with paper thin plots and empty technique. For me he's been hit and miss, but Villeneuve is trying at least.
Last edited:
Mitch Gross
Veteran
I would agree with this. I do not dislike him as a filmmaker, although I find his style to be evolving more and more into a bit of a naval-gaze. The Arrival made sense as a slow, introspective work. But then he went to far with Blade Runner.
combatentropy
Veteran
I also agree, not to gang up on you, OldCorpse. Something in his work definitely touched a nerve for you, though.
I don't like how he directs actors (too blah) and I think script flaws pass under his nose. But his camerawork is a breath of fresh air, even though it's not exactly how I would do it.
In most movies, I think the scene is cut into too many shots, and each shot is often uninspired, like is criticized in this video:
Villeneuve's compositions are better than most. And he cuts less, the shots are allowed to breathe. I also think he deliberately tries to show the "geography" of a scene (this person is here, these other people are over there, and then this thing is here).
I don't like how he directs actors (too blah) and I think script flaws pass under his nose. But his camerawork is a breath of fresh air, even though it's not exactly how I would do it.
In most movies, I think the scene is cut into too many shots, and each shot is often uninspired, like is criticized in this video:
Villeneuve's compositions are better than most. And he cuts less, the shots are allowed to breathe. I also think he deliberately tries to show the "geography" of a scene (this person is here, these other people are over there, and then this thing is here).
I honestly find your hatred for Villeneueve to be a little extreme. I can understand finding flaws in his work, and disliking them. But at the very least he is a filmmaker trying to make interesting films that aren't insulting to the audience. I reserve my hatred for filmmakers who make crassly commercial, brain dead, flashy films with paper thin plots and empty technique. For me he's been hit and miss, but Villeneuve is trying at least.
Well, I "hatred" is a bit of a too strong a word. What gets at it closer is "irritation" and "dismay" - I think he's a talentless hack, but hey there are a million out there, so why should I care? I wouldn't except - he gets so much hype and admiration. I mean, if he was just another obscure hack, I wouldn't care at all. My entire dislike is spiked by this reality. There are talented directors out there who are justly famous - I am very happy for their deserved success, and there are directors out there who are underappreciated, and I'm sad for that. But what gets me dismayed and irate is when a mediocrity like Villeneueve gets treated like directors who are actually talented and accomplished. And I guess I have exactly the opposite attitude from yours because I actually don't hate "filmmakers who make crassly commercial, brain dead, flashy films with paper thin plots and empty technique" - because they are hacks who are treated as hacks. No problem - it's as it should be! But when you take a total hack like Villeneuve and treat him as if he's a skillfull director that I scream "something's wrong here!".
I also agree, not to gang up on you, OldCorpse. Something in his work definitely touched a nerve for you, though.
What nerve it touched I explained above - when good directors get overlooked, or bad ones get fawned over is what touches a nerve. But that's my problem - I really should let it go, and 99% of the time I do, but this is a film-oriented board, so I feel compelled to say my piece. When I see something as red and a bunch of people marvel what a great blue it is, I get up and say "but it's red!". So, in that sense it touches a nerve, because I care.
What I don't give a fig about is "not to gang up on you, OldCorpse" - I honestly don't care. Attack me all day long if it floats anyones boat, and I don't care if there is one critic or a whole barrel of them - I'm a pretty self-secure individual, and confident of my judgment. But for all that, I actually like to listen to opposing opinions, because it's good to challenge your own views and have an opportunity to learn. And in my life I found exactly that "ganging up", or a vigoruous attack is far, far more valuable than anodyne bloodless "making nice" type interractions. If you got the balls, I highly recommend it. When I was just starting out working at the talent agency, one of the perks for us young overworked guys was that they'd often invite big directors, producers and executives to give us a Q&A session where we could interact with the biggest names in the business. I was always the guy who would brutally state some point of view without wrapping it up in a lot of fancy cotton - "I really hated that scene because X, Y, Z" - everyone would go silent and still, but every time (I guess I was lucky!), the director or producer would engage seriously and heatedly, and because it was a heated discussion we'd all learn a TON, a METRIC TON more than if it was the usual harmless flattery and boring "questions".
So I highly recommend being IN YOUR FACE with your views. If something is cr@p, say so - AS LONG AS YOU HAVE VERY GOOD REASONS you can articulate. In any Q&A session, be brutally frank - you'll either get decked or a super interesting discussion will result. Most often it's interesting. So too here. I don't post stuff looking for friends, and people not to attack me. I'm looking for engagement, because from that fire truth is forged. Of course, you have to have something to say, and be well informed and have your act together. If you do, being "ganged up on" merely confirms for you that you are your own man and not one of the thousand "yes, get along" pointless guys. I welcome and am happy for people to "gang up on me". It would feel wrong for it not to be so.
Villeneuve's compositions are better than most. And he cuts less, the shots are allowed to breathe. I also think he deliberately tries to show the "geography" of a scene (this person is here, these other people are over there, and then this thing is here).
Meh, everything I had to say about Villeneueve's directing I said in the original Sicario thread, and I don't feel any need to add to it, until I see BR2049:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?342984-Sicario
Well, I "hatred" is a bit of a too strong a word. What gets at it closer is "irritation" and "dismay" - I think he's a talentless hack, but hey there are a million out there, so why should I care? I wouldn't except - he gets so much hype and admiration. I mean, if he was just another obscure hack, I wouldn't care at all. My entire dislike is spiked by this reality. There are talented directors out there who are justly famous - I am very happy for their deserved success, and there are directors out there who are underappreciated, and I'm sad for that. But what gets me dismayed and irate is when a mediocrity like Villeneueve gets treated like directors who are actually talented and accomplished. And I guess I have exactly the opposite attitude from yours because I actually don't hate "filmmakers who make crassly commercial, brain dead, flashy films with paper thin plots and empty technique" - because they are hacks who are treated as hacks. No problem - it's as it should be! But when you take a total hack like Villeneuve and treat him as if he's a skillfull director that I scream "something's wrong here!".
I also agree, not to gang up on you, OldCorpse. Something in his work definitely touched a nerve for you, though.
What nerve it touched I explained above - when good directors get overlooked, or bad ones get fawned over is what touches a nerve. But that's my problem - I really should let it go, and 99% of the time I do, but this is a film-oriented board, so I feel compelled to say my piece. When I see something as red and a bunch of people marvel what a great blue it is, I get up and say "but it's red!". So, in that sense it touches a nerve, because I care.
What I don't give a fig about is "not to gang up on you, OldCorpse" - I honestly don't care. Attack me all day long if it floats anyones boat, and I don't care if there is one critic or a whole barrel of them - I'm a pretty self-secure individual, and confident of my judgment. But for all that, I actually like to listen to opposing opinions, because it's good to challenge your own views and have an opportunity to learn. And in my life I found exactly that "ganging up", or a vigoruous attack is far, far more valuable than anodyne bloodless "making nice" type interractions. If you got the balls, I highly recommend it. When I was just starting out working at the talent agency, one of the perks for us young overworked guys was that they'd often invite big directors, producers and executives to give us a Q&A session where we could interact with the biggest names in the business. I was always the guy who would brutally state some point of view without wrapping it up in a lot of fancy cotton - "I really hated that scene because X, Y, Z" - everyone would go silent and still, but every time (I guess I was lucky!), the director or producer would engage seriously and heatedly, and because it was a heated discussion we'd all learn a TON, a METRIC TON more than if it was the usual harmless flattery and boring "questions".
So I highly recommend being IN YOUR FACE with your views. If something is cr@p, say so - AS LONG AS YOU HAVE VERY GOOD REASONS you can articulate. In any Q&A session, be brutally frank - you'll either get decked or a super interesting discussion will result. Most often it's interesting. So too here. I don't post stuff looking for friends, and people not to attack me. I'm looking for engagement, because from that fire truth is forged. Of course, you have to have something to say, and be well informed and have your act together. If you do, being "ganged up on" merely confirms for you that you are your own man and not one of the thousand "yes, get along" pointless guys. I welcome and am happy for people to "gang up on me". It would feel wrong for it not to be so.
Villeneuve's compositions are better than most. And he cuts less, the shots are allowed to breathe. I also think he deliberately tries to show the "geography" of a scene (this person is here, these other people are over there, and then this thing is here).
Meh, everything I had to say about Villeneueve's directing I said in the original Sicario thread, and I don't feel any need to add to it, until I see BR2049:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?342984-Sicario
Batutta
Major Contributor
Perhaps it's just the strong choice of words you use to express yourself most times, that makes your opinions seem more intense then they truly are. For example, calling Villeneuve a 'talentless hack' I think is extreme and leaves no room for nuance. It's my general problem with internet discourse. Something has to be either 'the greatest thing ever' or 'the worst thing ever'. I will never agree DV is a total hack. But I can agree he's bad at some things and great and/or mediocre in other areas as a filmmaker. Then we could start having a productive discussion. But starting out with charged invective, everyone gets their hackles up and retreats to their own defensive corners, like basically every other comment section on the internet. I get your irritation. Sometimes, I'm harder on movies that fumble the ball at the ten yard line, then I am at movies that never had a chance of being good. But you've made so many negative comments about Villeneuve recently and in the past I started to think he slept with your girlfriend or something.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
I think you give him a bit to much credit with the praise of his blocking and cutting. While clear it's also simplistic, the rough equivalent of John Landis' directing. So that staging isn't so impressive to me.
Great directors can be stylish and/or true to their material without being either over-the-top or dull. While Orson Welles is often noted for baroque styles and innovative staging, often times he showed subtle mastery of the camera without obvious directorial flair. The Lady from Shanghai has a great scene where the lawyer asks Welles' character to stage his (the lawyer's) murder and Welles stages it as a single shot off a crane that moves from wide to single to over the shoulder, etc. seamlessly in a way one never notices. Likewise John Huston was never known as a complex visual director yet in fact he held an absolute command of the camera and the edit but never wielded it in a showy way. There are shots and edits in a movie like Prizzi's Honor that elicit a laugh just on the juxtaposition.
I see little of that subtlety and mastery in DV's work.
Fair enough. Part of why I use such strong language is in what I see as proportionate reaction to excessive praise of V. The more he's praised, the stronger my language of disapproval is. So, it's not a true measure of his worth "horrible hack", but a response to "great director" - if it were "decent director" it would be "what?! he's a bit of a hack".
And I'm not bothered by strong terms "on the internet", as long as someone makes a case that holds water. I mean, it's just not very engaging (to me) to say "grey, medium, luke-warm" - I'd rather someone throws down "screaming red, top of the hill, blazing hot" - makes for a more interesting exchange. The other thing is that the medium does not lend itself to conveying tone and attitude - one can say "he's a horrible hack" different ways in real conversation, from serious accusation to a shrug meaning "I'm not 100% serious, I'm kinda fronting a bit". But written as a post, it's hard to do that kind of nuance. YMMV.
Anyway, I'm just expressing a one-person opinion, and I fully acknowledge that I might be an outlier and most folks just love the guy, more power to them - any time you find something or someone to admire, it's a win, so if you love V. I can only be happy for you, even if it doesn't work for me. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
And I'm not bothered by strong terms "on the internet", as long as someone makes a case that holds water. I mean, it's just not very engaging (to me) to say "grey, medium, luke-warm" - I'd rather someone throws down "screaming red, top of the hill, blazing hot" - makes for a more interesting exchange. The other thing is that the medium does not lend itself to conveying tone and attitude - one can say "he's a horrible hack" different ways in real conversation, from serious accusation to a shrug meaning "I'm not 100% serious, I'm kinda fronting a bit". But written as a post, it's hard to do that kind of nuance. YMMV.
Anyway, I'm just expressing a one-person opinion, and I fully acknowledge that I might be an outlier and most folks just love the guy, more power to them - any time you find something or someone to admire, it's a win, so if you love V. I can only be happy for you, even if it doesn't work for me. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Batutta
Major Contributor
But some things are "grey, medium and luke-warm". I think tone can be communicated if people choose their words more carefully. I'd rather sacrifice a level of engagement for more civil discourse, and more accurate discussion. Especially in these times.
I have a different view, one which I take from John Maynard Keynes:
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
I didn't read any reviews before seeing the movie, as I wanted to give it a fair shot. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of the director, but I went in with an open mind. Possible spoilers follow.
Surprisingly, to me the things that I don't like about Villeneueve, were not a big problem with this film - his choice of blocking and staging was nothing to write home about, but it didn't stand out as awful the way it did in Sicario. If I had to describe this movie with one word, it's "feeble". Underpowered. Weak. Rickety. The biggest weakness (apart from the script) was in the choice of actors. When you do a sequel, it is inevitable that it's going to be compared to the first one. Especially when you make direct connections and homages. And by that metric the collection of actors that Villeneueve assembled is pathetic, but it goes deeper than that - these are underpowered actors weak in presence, skill and *number* and unequal not merely as a point of comparison to the original BR, but as being able to carry and even function in this movie. Let's start with the comparison.
For BR you had the original batch of replicants - Rutger Hauer, Daryl Hannah, Brion James and Joanna Cassidy. Who are the equivalents or their equals on the BR2019? It's so laughably lopsided, it's beyond embarrasig. There is not a single actor here that's even a quarter of the stage presence of Rutger Hauer as the replicant Roy Batty. Dave Bautista has a good look, but was sadly killed off very quickly and nobody came even close in the rest of the cast in the rest of the movie. Look at the charisma and feeling of the replicant in the pleasure model of Daryl Hannah, and the utterly weak and forgettable collection of bland pretty faces of the hologram girl and the other easy virtue girls. No comparison. No point of comparison between both the emotional vulnerability and engagement and the acting of Sean Young (Rachel) and whatever BR2049 threw in as a top level female replicant. The same goes for the humans here. Robin Wright was the best of the bunch, but her role here was pretty straighforward - nowhere in BR2049 did you have as striking a character as J.F. Sebastian. Wood Harris is embarrasing. Gosling is so different a character that there's no point in comparing him to Harrison Ford, and I suppose Gosling did OK here - although it's funny that when they brought in Harrison Ford to BR2049, he did more to give life and credibility to the sequences than the rest combined. Then we have the disaster of casting in the Wallace character - Jared Leto. Oh boy. Compare him to the amazing freakish presence of Joe Turkel as Tyrell vs Jared Leto as Wallace. The BR2049 guys figured they'll grease him up with extra hair gel and throw in some dimestore contact lenses, and presto - master of the replicant universe Jared Leto! He cannot carry that weight - not by a millionth! He has no stage presence, he's not believable as that heavyweight, he doesn't have the chops to act this role, and it feels like they just drafted a rando from the local bar for this role. He's *way* too thin psychologically. No depth. Disaster.
But the problem of actors goes way deeper than that. There are simply no striking characters at all in BR2049. Robin Wright is serviceable as an actress (and did the best job next to Gosling in this movie), but her *character* is not that interesting. Where is the 2049 J.F. Sebastian? Tyrell plays chess, what does Leto do, other than spout bad dialogue at endless length? Where is the depth of Roy Batty on that roof as he's dying? Where is there even as striking a character as the eye scientist who is killed by Hauer in BR? Which character can we hang our eyes our emotions and our expectations on in BR2049? Nobody, that's who. Weak actors, portraying unmemorable characters. That right there is 40% of the problem.
The other huge problem is the script. What an unengaging mess. Why such terrible and weak dialogue? They throw around weighty terms "God", "Angels", "Kingdom of Heaven" - way heavier gauge than anything in the original BR, but for all that, it's "storm and fury signifying nothing". When Leto/Wallace goes on his endless monolgues, it rings hollow (and amplified by the echoing sound effect relentlessly overused in BR2049), because not only doesn't it mean anything, but doesn't sound real coming out of that gell-hair head with bad contact lenses. It's babble. Or what about that eye-wateringly bad exposition by the awful Wood Harris, as he's walking around in the orphanage talking loudly about how he only cares about the exploitative child labor the orphans do - wow, how believable that he'd be doing that - maybe they can insert text cards like they did in silent movies to drive the point home. Low, low, low.
So what about those sets? Yep, amazing. Sure spent a lot of money. Pretty spectacular. If only in *service* of something. Alas, you have fabulous sets, and nothing to put into them. Weak actors and bland characters are utterly overwhelmend by these sets, looking like lost puppets wandering in vast landscapes. When the background is so much more interesting than the foreground action or characters, you've got a problem. The fantastic sets only underline the weaknesses at the heart of this film - poor script with uninvolving story, and weak actors of no charisma attempting to carry the weight forward. This contributes to the weak forward motion in the story. The filmmakers make a seemingly logical choice to focus on that which is good - the sets, and that's how you get long lingering scenes in a 2 hr 44 min film (as opposed to the original BR of 1 hr 50 min) - what else you're gonna focus on, the uninvolving story, bland characters and weak actors? The length of the movie is not a problem in and of itself - it is a *symptom* of the fundamental weakness of a story, characters and actors who cannot carry a film, and the sets then step in as a subsitute for audience involvement with at least some aspect of the film - the visual spectacle. The question then becomes, is the spectacle worth almost 3 hours of time or is it too long for what it is. For some, especially cinematography and art department fans, it may be enough, for the general audience probably not. The weakness of the narrative drive also results in a blatant focus on exposition that's peripheral to the forward movement of the story - and so we get many minutes spent on demonstrating of the supposedly amazing futuristic tech, whole scenes whose ONLY purpose is demonstration, as if putting a pause button on the action and now we can lose ourselves in tech demos... pretty strong indictment of the story - the futuristic tech in the orginal BR is never dwelled upon, we witness it IN SERVICE of the story, so that we witness it *in action* not in demonstraton. Look at the whole way BR2049 intros the hologram girl - lengthy scenes whose ONLY point is showing off the tech. Lame. Btw., the whole idea of hologram girl is a a bad choice story-wise as the ephemeral purely electronic nature of this creature does not promote strong emotional attachement for the audience - in the original BR, the fact that the high level replicants are clearly made of flesh and bone, give us an automatic empathy and identification that a hologram can never match. Hence, the weak pallid emotionally removed film, which is hard to engage with - how hard are you going to engage emotionally with a hologram? Those idiotic scenes of lovemaking preparation of the holo girl and the call girl blending in - gee, we're meant to go ooh-and-aah over the tech, whereas it just looks weird and loopy, not sexy or interesting.
The third rate nature of this enterprise is pointed up every time the film makes a reference to some aspect of the original BR. It becomes an immediate comparison, and always an embarrasing reminder of just how much worse BR2049 is. And that's how you get to compare the original interrogation scene and tech of the Voigt-Kampff test of replicants with the lamo BR2049. Holy Moses. In BR we have an amazing noir interrogaton room of strong lights and shadows, the fantastic face of Brion Jones and the cig-smoking interrogator. In BR2049, you have our man Gosling in a white cubicle staring at a white wall with a couple of sensors, no interrogator present. Then come the questions - in BR it's intriguing and on some level deeply psychological questions touching upon empathy and human emotion, all COMPREHENSIBLE to the audience. In BR2049, you have a rapid patter of questions and answers composed of nothing but a stream of meaningless buzzwords "cell" "integrated" etc. all meaning less than nothing to the audience - and with ZERO of the feeling of tension as in BR when Brion Jones is weighing his answers and the interrogator plays upon the psychology of his subject. FEH, spit. Or the wall breach - BR you have a sudden puncture of Batty's fists through wall shocking in its display of strength, and in BR2049, you have a head pounding on the wall gradually breaking through and all you can think of is how poorly constructed the wall must be, all with the tension of a wet napkin. In BR, the echo and reverb laden voices are used in big spaces, sparingly in sparse dialgue that underlines the scope of the content. In BR2049, it's used practically everywhere and all in the service of inane exchanges that never end, a kind of verbal diarrhea - super grating. The polyglot world of BR comes through organically in ads and surroundings, in BR2049 you have bizzarre exchanges where some peripheral characters chatter on in a mixture of Russian, Finnish and Gibberish, all given to us via subtitles, whereas Gosling for some reason answers in English - make up you mind filmmakers, either they're speaking in another language or in English, what's this one guy this one guy that. And the ads and billboards - iconic in BR and meant to be BACKGROUND coloring, spectacular as they are, but in BR2049, the filmmakers cannot resist having the ads and billboards come to holografic life to interact with the characters (Gosling), and for all that, not one of those images is as nearly as iconic and memorable as the strange geisha like creature with the disembodied voice in the BR billboard. FEH, spit. That is a problem throughout BR2049, stuff shown to us for no other reason than to "amaze" us, not moving the story one bit - that is NEVER done in BR, all amazing features of the future come to us only as a BACKGROUND to the story, never a direct focus. But when you got nothing in story and characters, I guess you'll focus on what you have, sets and tech demos. It's as if BR brings a cannon to a gun fight, and BR2049 brings a wet noodle that points limply to the ground.
And so on with so many comparisons - the magnificent soundtrack by Vangelis vs the forgettable mush of Hans Zimmer... the BR soundtrack is listened to to this day, decades later, and still selling. Who is going to listen to the BR2049 soundtrack once they leave the theater? The sooner you forget the heavy-handed and laughable attempts of "chorus" effects, the better, and that lame attempt at connecting with the Vangelis theme as Gosling lies on the steps in the snow, just points to the weakness of Zimmer as a soundtrack composer (the most overrated no-talent film composer alive today - and of course the choice of bad-judgment Villeneueve).
The overall impression of BR vs BR2049 is summed up in the expression "don't send a boy to do a man's job". In BR you have giants striding across the world, in BR2049, you have kids playacting - one feels real, the other feels backyard kids games.
Blade Runner is a classic for many reasons. You've got to have a ton of talent, understanding, dedication and balls to make a sequel to it. To stick Villeneueve with the task... "don't send a boy to do a man's job". The very idea of a sequel to BR was bad as such - what are the odds that there is a script and talent out there at the moment to pull off? If there is - and perhaps there is - then it's a capital crime to get this bunch of weaklings to attempt it, regardless of the vast sums spent.
The original BR didn't make money at the box office upon release either. But while one can easily see why it's become a classic that's watched to this day, one can just as easily predict that nobody is going to be watching 2049 in the future, except as a cautionary tale of what happens when... you "send a boy to do a man's job".
2 stars out of 5 - the two stars for the sets.
All IMHO, YMMV.
Surprisingly, to me the things that I don't like about Villeneueve, were not a big problem with this film - his choice of blocking and staging was nothing to write home about, but it didn't stand out as awful the way it did in Sicario. If I had to describe this movie with one word, it's "feeble". Underpowered. Weak. Rickety. The biggest weakness (apart from the script) was in the choice of actors. When you do a sequel, it is inevitable that it's going to be compared to the first one. Especially when you make direct connections and homages. And by that metric the collection of actors that Villeneueve assembled is pathetic, but it goes deeper than that - these are underpowered actors weak in presence, skill and *number* and unequal not merely as a point of comparison to the original BR, but as being able to carry and even function in this movie. Let's start with the comparison.
For BR you had the original batch of replicants - Rutger Hauer, Daryl Hannah, Brion James and Joanna Cassidy. Who are the equivalents or their equals on the BR2019? It's so laughably lopsided, it's beyond embarrasig. There is not a single actor here that's even a quarter of the stage presence of Rutger Hauer as the replicant Roy Batty. Dave Bautista has a good look, but was sadly killed off very quickly and nobody came even close in the rest of the cast in the rest of the movie. Look at the charisma and feeling of the replicant in the pleasure model of Daryl Hannah, and the utterly weak and forgettable collection of bland pretty faces of the hologram girl and the other easy virtue girls. No comparison. No point of comparison between both the emotional vulnerability and engagement and the acting of Sean Young (Rachel) and whatever BR2049 threw in as a top level female replicant. The same goes for the humans here. Robin Wright was the best of the bunch, but her role here was pretty straighforward - nowhere in BR2049 did you have as striking a character as J.F. Sebastian. Wood Harris is embarrasing. Gosling is so different a character that there's no point in comparing him to Harrison Ford, and I suppose Gosling did OK here - although it's funny that when they brought in Harrison Ford to BR2049, he did more to give life and credibility to the sequences than the rest combined. Then we have the disaster of casting in the Wallace character - Jared Leto. Oh boy. Compare him to the amazing freakish presence of Joe Turkel as Tyrell vs Jared Leto as Wallace. The BR2049 guys figured they'll grease him up with extra hair gel and throw in some dimestore contact lenses, and presto - master of the replicant universe Jared Leto! He cannot carry that weight - not by a millionth! He has no stage presence, he's not believable as that heavyweight, he doesn't have the chops to act this role, and it feels like they just drafted a rando from the local bar for this role. He's *way* too thin psychologically. No depth. Disaster.
But the problem of actors goes way deeper than that. There are simply no striking characters at all in BR2049. Robin Wright is serviceable as an actress (and did the best job next to Gosling in this movie), but her *character* is not that interesting. Where is the 2049 J.F. Sebastian? Tyrell plays chess, what does Leto do, other than spout bad dialogue at endless length? Where is the depth of Roy Batty on that roof as he's dying? Where is there even as striking a character as the eye scientist who is killed by Hauer in BR? Which character can we hang our eyes our emotions and our expectations on in BR2049? Nobody, that's who. Weak actors, portraying unmemorable characters. That right there is 40% of the problem.
The other huge problem is the script. What an unengaging mess. Why such terrible and weak dialogue? They throw around weighty terms "God", "Angels", "Kingdom of Heaven" - way heavier gauge than anything in the original BR, but for all that, it's "storm and fury signifying nothing". When Leto/Wallace goes on his endless monolgues, it rings hollow (and amplified by the echoing sound effect relentlessly overused in BR2049), because not only doesn't it mean anything, but doesn't sound real coming out of that gell-hair head with bad contact lenses. It's babble. Or what about that eye-wateringly bad exposition by the awful Wood Harris, as he's walking around in the orphanage talking loudly about how he only cares about the exploitative child labor the orphans do - wow, how believable that he'd be doing that - maybe they can insert text cards like they did in silent movies to drive the point home. Low, low, low.
So what about those sets? Yep, amazing. Sure spent a lot of money. Pretty spectacular. If only in *service* of something. Alas, you have fabulous sets, and nothing to put into them. Weak actors and bland characters are utterly overwhelmend by these sets, looking like lost puppets wandering in vast landscapes. When the background is so much more interesting than the foreground action or characters, you've got a problem. The fantastic sets only underline the weaknesses at the heart of this film - poor script with uninvolving story, and weak actors of no charisma attempting to carry the weight forward. This contributes to the weak forward motion in the story. The filmmakers make a seemingly logical choice to focus on that which is good - the sets, and that's how you get long lingering scenes in a 2 hr 44 min film (as opposed to the original BR of 1 hr 50 min) - what else you're gonna focus on, the uninvolving story, bland characters and weak actors? The length of the movie is not a problem in and of itself - it is a *symptom* of the fundamental weakness of a story, characters and actors who cannot carry a film, and the sets then step in as a subsitute for audience involvement with at least some aspect of the film - the visual spectacle. The question then becomes, is the spectacle worth almost 3 hours of time or is it too long for what it is. For some, especially cinematography and art department fans, it may be enough, for the general audience probably not. The weakness of the narrative drive also results in a blatant focus on exposition that's peripheral to the forward movement of the story - and so we get many minutes spent on demonstrating of the supposedly amazing futuristic tech, whole scenes whose ONLY purpose is demonstration, as if putting a pause button on the action and now we can lose ourselves in tech demos... pretty strong indictment of the story - the futuristic tech in the orginal BR is never dwelled upon, we witness it IN SERVICE of the story, so that we witness it *in action* not in demonstraton. Look at the whole way BR2049 intros the hologram girl - lengthy scenes whose ONLY point is showing off the tech. Lame. Btw., the whole idea of hologram girl is a a bad choice story-wise as the ephemeral purely electronic nature of this creature does not promote strong emotional attachement for the audience - in the original BR, the fact that the high level replicants are clearly made of flesh and bone, give us an automatic empathy and identification that a hologram can never match. Hence, the weak pallid emotionally removed film, which is hard to engage with - how hard are you going to engage emotionally with a hologram? Those idiotic scenes of lovemaking preparation of the holo girl and the call girl blending in - gee, we're meant to go ooh-and-aah over the tech, whereas it just looks weird and loopy, not sexy or interesting.
The third rate nature of this enterprise is pointed up every time the film makes a reference to some aspect of the original BR. It becomes an immediate comparison, and always an embarrasing reminder of just how much worse BR2049 is. And that's how you get to compare the original interrogation scene and tech of the Voigt-Kampff test of replicants with the lamo BR2049. Holy Moses. In BR we have an amazing noir interrogaton room of strong lights and shadows, the fantastic face of Brion Jones and the cig-smoking interrogator. In BR2049, you have our man Gosling in a white cubicle staring at a white wall with a couple of sensors, no interrogator present. Then come the questions - in BR it's intriguing and on some level deeply psychological questions touching upon empathy and human emotion, all COMPREHENSIBLE to the audience. In BR2049, you have a rapid patter of questions and answers composed of nothing but a stream of meaningless buzzwords "cell" "integrated" etc. all meaning less than nothing to the audience - and with ZERO of the feeling of tension as in BR when Brion Jones is weighing his answers and the interrogator plays upon the psychology of his subject. FEH, spit. Or the wall breach - BR you have a sudden puncture of Batty's fists through wall shocking in its display of strength, and in BR2049, you have a head pounding on the wall gradually breaking through and all you can think of is how poorly constructed the wall must be, all with the tension of a wet napkin. In BR, the echo and reverb laden voices are used in big spaces, sparingly in sparse dialgue that underlines the scope of the content. In BR2049, it's used practically everywhere and all in the service of inane exchanges that never end, a kind of verbal diarrhea - super grating. The polyglot world of BR comes through organically in ads and surroundings, in BR2049 you have bizzarre exchanges where some peripheral characters chatter on in a mixture of Russian, Finnish and Gibberish, all given to us via subtitles, whereas Gosling for some reason answers in English - make up you mind filmmakers, either they're speaking in another language or in English, what's this one guy this one guy that. And the ads and billboards - iconic in BR and meant to be BACKGROUND coloring, spectacular as they are, but in BR2049, the filmmakers cannot resist having the ads and billboards come to holografic life to interact with the characters (Gosling), and for all that, not one of those images is as nearly as iconic and memorable as the strange geisha like creature with the disembodied voice in the BR billboard. FEH, spit. That is a problem throughout BR2049, stuff shown to us for no other reason than to "amaze" us, not moving the story one bit - that is NEVER done in BR, all amazing features of the future come to us only as a BACKGROUND to the story, never a direct focus. But when you got nothing in story and characters, I guess you'll focus on what you have, sets and tech demos. It's as if BR brings a cannon to a gun fight, and BR2049 brings a wet noodle that points limply to the ground.
And so on with so many comparisons - the magnificent soundtrack by Vangelis vs the forgettable mush of Hans Zimmer... the BR soundtrack is listened to to this day, decades later, and still selling. Who is going to listen to the BR2049 soundtrack once they leave the theater? The sooner you forget the heavy-handed and laughable attempts of "chorus" effects, the better, and that lame attempt at connecting with the Vangelis theme as Gosling lies on the steps in the snow, just points to the weakness of Zimmer as a soundtrack composer (the most overrated no-talent film composer alive today - and of course the choice of bad-judgment Villeneueve).
The overall impression of BR vs BR2049 is summed up in the expression "don't send a boy to do a man's job". In BR you have giants striding across the world, in BR2049, you have kids playacting - one feels real, the other feels backyard kids games.
Blade Runner is a classic for many reasons. You've got to have a ton of talent, understanding, dedication and balls to make a sequel to it. To stick Villeneueve with the task... "don't send a boy to do a man's job". The very idea of a sequel to BR was bad as such - what are the odds that there is a script and talent out there at the moment to pull off? If there is - and perhaps there is - then it's a capital crime to get this bunch of weaklings to attempt it, regardless of the vast sums spent.
The original BR didn't make money at the box office upon release either. But while one can easily see why it's become a classic that's watched to this day, one can just as easily predict that nobody is going to be watching 2049 in the future, except as a cautionary tale of what happens when... you "send a boy to do a man's job".
2 stars out of 5 - the two stars for the sets.
All IMHO, YMMV.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
I basically agree. This film desperately needs a character with charisma like Roy Batty. BTW, it's "Sound and Fury," not Storm.
Visually stunning. I struggle to credit that to Villeneuve, though, when Roger Deakins delivered the shots, and a zillion FX artists created the rest -- often largely based on the visuals of the previous film (and also Soldier). What part of it was his vision? That's really difficult to tell. He tends to favor sprawling landscapes shot from above, so maybe that's his.
The sound design is also astounding.
The problem with Villeneuve, in my mind, is that he frequently seems to be confused about what story he's telling. He introduces and spends a great deal of time on characters and story elements which end up being inconsequential, and not only inconsequential, sometimes in direct contradiction to themselves.
Anyway, I appreciated that they didn't really just rehash the ideas from the first film, but instead moved on to the next apparent questions. The only problem is that the questions had largely been dealt with in Battlestar Galactica, and the presence of Olmos only served to draw attention to it. Not to mention that Blade Runner was copiously referenced in BSG, so they were telling you flat out they were running with the Blade Runner themes. As a result, BSG was sort of the thematic sequel, already, that this was trying to be. So, this seemed played.
Deckard didn't seem to have any real connection to Deckard from the first film. He's just . . . there. He could have been the grumpy old version of any previous Harrison Ford character, or just Ford himself. Dressing him entirely in gray didn't help. You could (almost literally) project anything you wanted onto him.
Now, all that doesn't mean I think it was terrible. It was a worthwhile watch. But it absolutely needed to be trimmed by at least 20 percent; too many scenes were agonizingly slow, and fight scenes went on for much longer than they should have. A bit of pacing discipline would have been nice.
So . . . 3/5? Good visuals, great sound, good acting? But too long, self-indulgent, a little bit confused? Will have to noodle everything for a while.
(In any case, I expected this to be the first real demonstration piece for what my 4K HDR screen could do, and I think it accomplished the task with aplomb.)
The sound design is also astounding.
The problem with Villeneuve, in my mind, is that he frequently seems to be confused about what story he's telling. He introduces and spends a great deal of time on characters and story elements which end up being inconsequential, and not only inconsequential, sometimes in direct contradiction to themselves.
Anyway, I appreciated that they didn't really just rehash the ideas from the first film, but instead moved on to the next apparent questions. The only problem is that the questions had largely been dealt with in Battlestar Galactica, and the presence of Olmos only served to draw attention to it. Not to mention that Blade Runner was copiously referenced in BSG, so they were telling you flat out they were running with the Blade Runner themes. As a result, BSG was sort of the thematic sequel, already, that this was trying to be. So, this seemed played.
Deckard didn't seem to have any real connection to Deckard from the first film. He's just . . . there. He could have been the grumpy old version of any previous Harrison Ford character, or just Ford himself. Dressing him entirely in gray didn't help. You could (almost literally) project anything you wanted onto him.
Now, all that doesn't mean I think it was terrible. It was a worthwhile watch. But it absolutely needed to be trimmed by at least 20 percent; too many scenes were agonizingly slow, and fight scenes went on for much longer than they should have. A bit of pacing discipline would have been nice.
So . . . 3/5? Good visuals, great sound, good acting? But too long, self-indulgent, a little bit confused? Will have to noodle everything for a while.
(In any case, I expected this to be the first real demonstration piece for what my 4K HDR screen could do, and I think it accomplished the task with aplomb.)
I enjoyed it. Obvious best cinematography Oscar winner this year since there's no particular challenge from the other "greats".
Gosling was engaging, Ford certainly showing his age . I thought the performances were not outstanding, but did the job.
I did feel that Villeneuve ended up a bit overwhelmed by the gravitas of the whole Blade Runner Universe. This is a, lets say, pretentious story to tell, much like Prometheus and the new Alien were. They both seem to touch similar themes , which may or may not raise questions of both film Universes being in fact the same one. Only Ridley Scott can tell. Villeneuve concentrated on grounding the story on Gosling's character and try to connect it to Decker but by doing so and not exploring more the characters of Wallace, for example, or his personal "secretary", as well as the "other worlds" and the "shutdown" plots, he avoided some potentially interesting topics. By only giving these a glimpse, what prevailed was a simple detective story that ended up in an underwhelming way. The "resistance" aspect ended up predictable, as well as the underwhelming twist.
Still, it was enjoyable, enjoyed the pacing, the atmosphere, Gosling and his relationship with the "Hologram", and overall the whole journey, even though it did feel it didn't live up to the potential created.
"Blade Runner"- and I know its a bit nauseating what I'm about to say- is a "cinematic universe" that still has much to be explored. Unfortunately the poor box office might mean this was the last time we see it on the big screen.
Gosling was engaging, Ford certainly showing his age . I thought the performances were not outstanding, but did the job.
I did feel that Villeneuve ended up a bit overwhelmed by the gravitas of the whole Blade Runner Universe. This is a, lets say, pretentious story to tell, much like Prometheus and the new Alien were. They both seem to touch similar themes , which may or may not raise questions of both film Universes being in fact the same one. Only Ridley Scott can tell. Villeneuve concentrated on grounding the story on Gosling's character and try to connect it to Decker but by doing so and not exploring more the characters of Wallace, for example, or his personal "secretary", as well as the "other worlds" and the "shutdown" plots, he avoided some potentially interesting topics. By only giving these a glimpse, what prevailed was a simple detective story that ended up in an underwhelming way. The "resistance" aspect ended up predictable, as well as the underwhelming twist.
Still, it was enjoyable, enjoyed the pacing, the atmosphere, Gosling and his relationship with the "Hologram", and overall the whole journey, even though it did feel it didn't live up to the potential created.
"Blade Runner"- and I know its a bit nauseating what I'm about to say- is a "cinematic universe" that still has much to be explored. Unfortunately the poor box office might mean this was the last time we see it on the big screen.
Last edited:
I just watched about an hour. Gosling must have been created as the only replicant with a somnambulist tendency. Jared Leto stepped off a James Bond caricature villain. Robin Wright looks like a Soviet commissar from "Heart of a Dog". The hologram actually played into the detachment of the whole film ... or the hour that I did end up watching. The pretty actresses in bit parts remind me of a soap opera, where being good looking is 80% of success.
And, as mentioned above, the gorgeous cinematography was wasted on the meandering plot line. And you don't make this film better by cutting half hour off the top. The director didn't provide any sense of pacing. I could hear him giving directions to Gosling, "Your role is to play a cop on Quaaludes, who just had a thermos of Chamomile". Not so good.
And, as mentioned above, the gorgeous cinematography was wasted on the meandering plot line. And you don't make this film better by cutting half hour off the top. The director didn't provide any sense of pacing. I could hear him giving directions to Gosling, "Your role is to play a cop on Quaaludes, who just had a thermos of Chamomile". Not so good.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
https://screenrant.com/blade-runner-film-noir-tropes-sci-fi-twist/amp/
"Blade Runner: 10 Tropes Of Film Noir (& How It Puts A Sci-Fi Twist On Them)"
The list is about the original
"Blade Runner: 10 Tropes Of Film Noir (& How It Puts A Sci-Fi Twist On Them)"
The list is about the original
combatentropy
Veteran
Thanks. Film noir is a genre I have always been naturally drawn to.
An eleventh trope is water. I once read that water plays a role in many film noir movies, and it certainly does here with the rain. It also does in the climax of the sequel.
An eleventh trope is water. I once read that water plays a role in many film noir movies, and it certainly does here with the rain. It also does in the climax of the sequel.