Andrew Stone
Veteran
Well said Batutta, well said.
Dune trailer by Villeneuve looks beautiful - premieres Dec 18, 2020
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
Well said Batutta, well said.
We all express our points of view here. Opinions will differ. It's OK if you see things differently from me or someone else. You having a different opinion from me is no grounds for me to attack you. If someone finds enjoyment or value in a work, well, that's to be celebrated, regardless of whether somebody else has the opposite opinion. Enjoy what you enjoy.
But if we hope to bring value to these boards, hopefully we all can bring arguments and evidence for our opinions, and not just namecall, throw out insults and calumnies toward the target of our opinions. That's what I try to do. I try to go into great detail to buttress my arguments, not just "gee, I don't like this director, film, work, the end". I'm happy to be compared to anyone on these boards in this respect. We may still disagree, that's fine, but then again, the aim of these threads is not to achieve uniform thought control where only one opinion is allowed. I don't try to bully anyone to agree with me - I try to say, frequently, that it's just "my opinion", YMMV and so on.
You like the trailer and DV's work - great. I find DV's work to be very inferior, and that's my opinion which I give many detailed arguments for. Hopefully both have value. And it's OK to have a minority opinion. Perhaps everyone loves this trailer, that still doesn't mean you aren't allowed to think for yourself and have your own opinion - what can I say, I've never felt the need to agree with others just because they're in the majority.
My advice is to focus on the work being evaluated and not on other commenters - it's more productive that way.
But if we hope to bring value to these boards, hopefully we all can bring arguments and evidence for our opinions, and not just namecall, throw out insults and calumnies toward the target of our opinions. That's what I try to do. I try to go into great detail to buttress my arguments, not just "gee, I don't like this director, film, work, the end". I'm happy to be compared to anyone on these boards in this respect. We may still disagree, that's fine, but then again, the aim of these threads is not to achieve uniform thought control where only one opinion is allowed. I don't try to bully anyone to agree with me - I try to say, frequently, that it's just "my opinion", YMMV and so on.
You like the trailer and DV's work - great. I find DV's work to be very inferior, and that's my opinion which I give many detailed arguments for. Hopefully both have value. And it's OK to have a minority opinion. Perhaps everyone loves this trailer, that still doesn't mean you aren't allowed to think for yourself and have your own opinion - what can I say, I've never felt the need to agree with others just because they're in the majority.
My advice is to focus on the work being evaluated and not on other commenters - it's more productive that way.
Batutta
Major Contributor
Also, for what it's worth Old Corpse, I personally have never taken issue with your opinions, only the way you've occasionally expressed them. I think you can use overly harsh and unnuanced language to get your point across. It's something I dislike about internet discourse, where people phrase everything in the most hyperbolic way to provoke a reaction. I start to distrust and discount people's opinions when they can't see gradations of quality or skill. Not everything is great or terrible. Most things lie on a spectrum between those two points. It's one thing to call DV's work inferior. It's another to call it COMPLETE GARBAGE.
What I was advocating was not to aim “just insults” against the targets of our opinions i.e. in this case DV (which is what I wrote, see above). So, say, if I call DV “talentless”, which can be seen as an insult, that’s not the *only* thing I do, I give extensive grounds for doing so. In other words, I’m trying to make speech as broadly free as possible while at the same time remaining productive in a discussion and adding value. Insult the director/creator as much as you wish... as long as you can back it up. Attacking other commenters meanwhile, or focusing on them at all, by contrast is not productive. What do you learn about film if I were to call you “X” or “Y”? So, talk any ish you want about the creator, but make sure every time you’ve got the goods - that way, you can still bring value.
Regarding internet discourse - funny as we’ve had this discussion before, Batutta. I have a different view - and I quoted Keynes as an example of someone who had the same approach. You use hyperbolic and strong language precisely because it moves people to look more closely at the issue compared to anodyne bland statements. It’s the same idea as in film or any art. You’re looking for strong effects, and getting strong reactions is always preferable to weak reactions. That doesn’t mean your preference in internet discourse is any worse (or better!) than mine - just a different approach. To each their own.
As to calling something “complete garbage” - it’s a matter of standards. I mean, if a fellow shoots footage that’s out of focus so you can’t tell what you see, well I’ll call it complete garbage. The fact that someone jumps in to say - “how unnuanced! What about the other guy who shot the footage with his lens cap on! That’s worse! Nuance!” - doesn’t pull the out of focus footage out of the complete garbage can. Yes, it can always be worse. So what.
The point here is that the original purpose has been missed, not by how much. Two scenarios. Scenario (a) where a comedy does not contain a single laugh. It has failed comprehensively. I call it complete garbage, because it has not achieved its fundamental purpose. I don’t care if the lighting is great by the great Deakins or whoever. Or it has great sets. It’s complete garbage. Scenario (b) a comedy that has only a few laughs - OK, now I can do nuance. I can say it’s weak, or underpowered, and I think I’ve been scrupulously fair in my critiques. If anyone wants proof, they can go to the Sicario thread which I linked to above - I even thought the film had some merit, and I said so. I said I did not regret the money or time spent. So it’s just not fair to say I do no nuance. Same with my review of BR2049 - I didn’t give it zero stars. I praised what I thought was possible to praise. Again, it’s not fair to say I do no nuance.
But there have to be standards. If you aim to have a scene be moving, and the audience laughs instead in an unintentional comedic moment, you have completely missed. I call that complete garbage. At that moment it’s not an issue of nuance or “how close”. The patient died on the operating table due to a mistake by the surgeon. Nothing else matters. Close doesn’t count here. A comedy that’s not funny, a thriller that doesn’t thrill, a mystery that doesn’t mystify. Complete garbage. Sure, the lens cap was off, it’s still complete garbage.
That’s the problem with a lot of DV’s work as I see it. It misses completely. And when it does, I say so, and I give my arguments.
As to trusting people’s opinions - I never do “trust”. “Take my word for it, it’s a great film” - err, no. I’m only interested in anyone’s opinion insofar as they can back them up with arguments. Which is why I try to always give as detailed and strong arguments for my opinion as possible. I don’t expect people to “trust” my opinion, only to examine my arguments. Oh, and btw. I don’t expect people to agree with my opinions either... although I do hope that when there’s a disagreement it’s met with counter-arguments, and it’s all focused on the subject matter and not each other. But that’s me, YMMV.
Regarding internet discourse - funny as we’ve had this discussion before, Batutta. I have a different view - and I quoted Keynes as an example of someone who had the same approach. You use hyperbolic and strong language precisely because it moves people to look more closely at the issue compared to anodyne bland statements. It’s the same idea as in film or any art. You’re looking for strong effects, and getting strong reactions is always preferable to weak reactions. That doesn’t mean your preference in internet discourse is any worse (or better!) than mine - just a different approach. To each their own.
As to calling something “complete garbage” - it’s a matter of standards. I mean, if a fellow shoots footage that’s out of focus so you can’t tell what you see, well I’ll call it complete garbage. The fact that someone jumps in to say - “how unnuanced! What about the other guy who shot the footage with his lens cap on! That’s worse! Nuance!” - doesn’t pull the out of focus footage out of the complete garbage can. Yes, it can always be worse. So what.
The point here is that the original purpose has been missed, not by how much. Two scenarios. Scenario (a) where a comedy does not contain a single laugh. It has failed comprehensively. I call it complete garbage, because it has not achieved its fundamental purpose. I don’t care if the lighting is great by the great Deakins or whoever. Or it has great sets. It’s complete garbage. Scenario (b) a comedy that has only a few laughs - OK, now I can do nuance. I can say it’s weak, or underpowered, and I think I’ve been scrupulously fair in my critiques. If anyone wants proof, they can go to the Sicario thread which I linked to above - I even thought the film had some merit, and I said so. I said I did not regret the money or time spent. So it’s just not fair to say I do no nuance. Same with my review of BR2049 - I didn’t give it zero stars. I praised what I thought was possible to praise. Again, it’s not fair to say I do no nuance.
But there have to be standards. If you aim to have a scene be moving, and the audience laughs instead in an unintentional comedic moment, you have completely missed. I call that complete garbage. At that moment it’s not an issue of nuance or “how close”. The patient died on the operating table due to a mistake by the surgeon. Nothing else matters. Close doesn’t count here. A comedy that’s not funny, a thriller that doesn’t thrill, a mystery that doesn’t mystify. Complete garbage. Sure, the lens cap was off, it’s still complete garbage.
That’s the problem with a lot of DV’s work as I see it. It misses completely. And when it does, I say so, and I give my arguments.
As to trusting people’s opinions - I never do “trust”. “Take my word for it, it’s a great film” - err, no. I’m only interested in anyone’s opinion insofar as they can back them up with arguments. Which is why I try to always give as detailed and strong arguments for my opinion as possible. I don’t expect people to “trust” my opinion, only to examine my arguments. Oh, and btw. I don’t expect people to agree with my opinions either... although I do hope that when there’s a disagreement it’s met with counter-arguments, and it’s all focused on the subject matter and not each other. But that’s me, YMMV.
Batutta
Major Contributor
I think the Keynes approach ignores how people's emotions actually work, especially when it comes to something as subjective as art, and does you no favours. The problem with calling something 'complete garbage' off the top is that two people will have vastly different ideas of what that means, so all you've done is piss off people who don't agree and make them not want to read further. The goal of expressing an opinion is to open people up to your point of view and get them to consider it. When someone uses inflammatory language, I believe it does the OPPOSITE of making people listen. It closes people off from actually hearing you because they start to get defensive. This is something it took me a while to learn in creative meetings. Nobody wants to be made to feel stupid, and when you frame opinions in the starkest terms you're basically saying to that person if you disagree with me you're an idiot. I learned it's better to calibrate how I express my opinions, so that the other person is more receptive to my ideas. That doesn't mean changing them, just shading them in more precise, less provocative terms. If an idea is truly godawful, then at some point you have to call a spade a spade but rarely in my experience is that the case.
G
Guest
Guest
I think BR2049 was a whole lot of craft and money poured into an ultimately mediocre film.
Doesn't even seem like it was Roger Deakins best work, just perhaps his most colourful and grand in a while. Films like Fargo and No Country for Old Men seem much more his speed. Also, I don't think Roger Deakins was the right DP for 2049 either.
I think the reason BR2049 failed was Dennis Villenueve. And perhaps because Ridley Scott insisted they have a Las Vegas scene (there was something about that mentioned in an interview) That scene stuck out to me ask awkward. But I still like Dennis Villenueve as a director... just not for every film. He has a mood and a pace that I enjoy from time to time.
There were other elements that added to the films demise, and Jared Leto was part of it. They should have shot him in near shadow or silhouette, and perhaps that would have helped his performances and mystique a bit. I mean he is blind, he would need to be in a well lit room, and the darkness would give him an advantage and intimidation over anyone he interacts with.
Doesn't even seem like it was Roger Deakins best work, just perhaps his most colourful and grand in a while. Films like Fargo and No Country for Old Men seem much more his speed. Also, I don't think Roger Deakins was the right DP for 2049 either.
I think the reason BR2049 failed was Dennis Villenueve. And perhaps because Ridley Scott insisted they have a Las Vegas scene (there was something about that mentioned in an interview) That scene stuck out to me ask awkward. But I still like Dennis Villenueve as a director... just not for every film. He has a mood and a pace that I enjoy from time to time.
There were other elements that added to the films demise, and Jared Leto was part of it. They should have shot him in near shadow or silhouette, and perhaps that would have helped his performances and mystique a bit. I mean he is blind, he would need to be in a well lit room, and the darkness would give him an advantage and intimidation over anyone he interacts with.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I think BR2049 was a good movie. Just nowhere near as good as the original.
Deakins may not have been the right DP. The original was so cluttered, ugly, and claustrophobic (but in a beautiful, mesmerizing way). I dont think Deakins' instincts play to those adjectives.
My issues with BR2049 were, in no particular order:
1. How the hell has Ford survived so long?
2. Gosling lacks Ford's gravitas
3. Too pretty, too much natural light
4. Lack of proper tension/drama building somehow.
5. Why the hell do replicants have their number written on their eyeball? Totally demystifying. And if they could do that now, why couldn't they do it before?
6. Gosling was generally a bit boring. I think that was the role. But still.
7. Ford's too old to convincingly run around.
I actually liked Leto in it. And I loved the scene with the French replicant who had plucked out her own eye and when she subtly mocked Gosling for thinking he was the chosen one (so to speak). I liked Gosling's relationship with the AI. That was an interesting dynamic both in terms of the characters and the philosophical implications. Robin Wright was a bit dull. I think I liked the fight scene at the end. The Las Vegas bit was beautiful. Too beautiful? Man, the scene were the holographic showgirls were flitting on and off as they fought was dope. And the basic concepts of replicants sexually reproducing and having a mass rebellion was interesting material. As was the implanted memories.
Overall I liked more than I disliked about it. But it had mighty big shoes to fill as the sequel of BR.
Deakins may not have been the right DP. The original was so cluttered, ugly, and claustrophobic (but in a beautiful, mesmerizing way). I dont think Deakins' instincts play to those adjectives.
My issues with BR2049 were, in no particular order:
1. How the hell has Ford survived so long?
2. Gosling lacks Ford's gravitas
3. Too pretty, too much natural light
4. Lack of proper tension/drama building somehow.
5. Why the hell do replicants have their number written on their eyeball? Totally demystifying. And if they could do that now, why couldn't they do it before?
6. Gosling was generally a bit boring. I think that was the role. But still.
7. Ford's too old to convincingly run around.
I actually liked Leto in it. And I loved the scene with the French replicant who had plucked out her own eye and when she subtly mocked Gosling for thinking he was the chosen one (so to speak). I liked Gosling's relationship with the AI. That was an interesting dynamic both in terms of the characters and the philosophical implications. Robin Wright was a bit dull. I think I liked the fight scene at the end. The Las Vegas bit was beautiful. Too beautiful? Man, the scene were the holographic showgirls were flitting on and off as they fought was dope. And the basic concepts of replicants sexually reproducing and having a mass rebellion was interesting material. As was the implanted memories.
Overall I liked more than I disliked about it. But it had mighty big shoes to fill as the sequel of BR.
G
Guest
Guest
Pretty sure you are joking here.
Isn't that what this film reveals or confirms? He is a replicant (and some replicants might not have a definite expiration date). Two replicants made a life. They deserve to be considered living things. The whole moral conundrum premise of the first film.
G
Guest
Guest
Well, that's just it, isn't it? The goal of following up a master piece isn't usually to make a film that is ok. So, I totally understand if people speak in hyperbole about disliking 2049, or even call it a complete failure. Because to the audience and people who enjoyed the first film, that is what it is: a disappointment.
G
Guest
Guest
given the issues with earlier replicants, I would imagine they would implement tags or signs that make them easier to identify. However, I find the whole premise of replicants a bit of an issue. Sometimes it just seems like way more hassle than they're worth. That said, I think it is an interesting premise to consider, especially as we get close to the reality of them.
G
Guest
Guest
This feels like most of Dennis Villenueve's films. Sicario had moments, like the border stop scene. But as a whole the film felt like a limp balloon at worst, and moody atmospheric journey at best. (have to admit, the passive protagonist was a weird choice. I almost like it for being a ballsy choice, rather than a misstep, but have to admit, it is frustrating at times)
DV almost always seems to lack that proper tension building, but he can keep that mood or sense of tension going for a longer time than most. it just never seems to go beyond that. It worked really well in 'Enemy'. It was all that was needed, it was a fever dream of a film. And in the film 'Prisoners', I think that sense of limbo reflected the internal feel of the protagonist. As one cannot resolve those feelings. But as Villenueve got more success, he began to be given films that no one can say no to, and I think that is a bit where I started to distance myself from being a fan, to just an observer. But who knows, after 2049 and Dune, he may come out of it all with a new set of experience and skills. We'll see.
I think Sicario teetered on making sense the way it was done. We are all helpless in fixing the issues within that film. Who is going to do something about it all? Not saying reflecting that concept makes a good film though. There were definite missteps at times in that film that definitively make it not a great film, and maybe not even a good film.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Did they explicitly state that some have no 3expiration date?
Seems like bollocks to me. Ford is 30 odd years older than in the original and they usually live about a decade.
The likelier explanation is that he's a big star, so instead of casting a different actor at an appropriate age to make the movie set an appropriate time after the original, they contorted the story to reuse Ford. (Just like star Wars.) And there we go, I'm out of the story just thinking about it
G
Guest
Guest
Difficult to say. Gosling plays to that in many of his roles:
Drive - the famous wordless Gosling stares (which worked in this one)
LaLa Land - the aloof Jazz musician... I guess? (didn't like it)
Crazy, Stupid, Love - the aloof cool guy (kind of worked, but didn't make him interesting)
Song to Song - isn't everyone in a Malick film this way though?
The Place Beyond the Pines - He died, that made him more interesting
First Man - shows what it might be like to have a father you can't relate to. Stern Gosling?
Basically, Gosling make high functioning autism sexy. Maybe that is the persona for a replicant in 2049, but to OldCorpse's point, that doesn't necessarily make drama the same way the more visceral replicants of the original did.
He was in part the only one for the role in 2049, but that was only because of the hype surrounding him at the time. He was the only leading man that could sell tickets for a film like that. But as far as history might be concerned, he was perhaps miscast... if you wanted an interesting character with gritty charactered gravitas.....
Let's just be thankful that Dennis Villenueve didn't recast Josh Brolin (Sicario) and Dave Bautista (BR2049) in 'Dune' (2020).
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Wow, you clearly did not watch the original, which states that Rachael had no set date of expiration.
Given that replicants were artificially terminated typically, there is no other indication that they should age as humans do.
#unicorndreams
ozmorphasis
Well-known member
It doesn't matter how much depth and analysis you provide (and I give you much credit for that) when backing up your point, if your point is absolute where it concerns attributes like talent. There is no amount of evidence that will back up the idea that someone (even an amateur, let alone DV) is completely talentless.
As a Californian who loves California, I take similar issue with the absolute style of flag waving that you do to defend California as well (AB5 thread). It's just VERY my side vs the other side/my way or the highway. Put differently, two people talking that way but with opposing views are not actually discussing AND listening...which is redundant, since the former requires the latter.
"are we watching the same trailer? It looks like s*%t to me." It's the first part of that thought, the part without the actual relevant personal opinion and the strong language that is insulting. Someone shared something they like. You can share that you don't like it. That part in between, however, is basically invalidating the other person's opinion. Why would it be surprising to you that someone else has a different opinion than you if you agree that these things are opinions?
It's ok, it's your style. However, if you happen to be interested in having me or anyone else listen more deeply to your admittedly well thought-through critiques and analysis, then the above is a bit of food for though that you can take or leave. I'm certainly not here on a board to change a grown man's style. That's up to you. That said, you have more than one person on this thread telling you the same thing in different ways.
G
Guest
Guest
In defense of OldCorpse,
We are typing on a forum, not always talking to an individual. and talking to an individual person is a different thing. I think more than most users, OldCorpse is often talking to the broader user base. He is often the person starting a movie review thread. So in that sense, I understand his "forum voice".
OldCorpse may have different views on this than me, but this is how I understand forum hyperbole. If you want to get a. reaction, you have to say something extreme. As long as you accept that you might get bad responses, it can be ok. So long as it generates debate.
But how that hyperbole is done, is different from user to user. In OldCorpse's way, he is generally talking about a matching of goals and results. In the case of 'BR2049', the film makers were following a cult classic and an arguable master piece of cinema.... they delivered an ok film. In that sense, almost anyone is doomed to fail, so I totally understand if someone calls it a total failure or a bad film. Because it wouldn't be living up to the hype. There is logic in the scope of thought. I wouldn't understand if they called it the worst film ever. As there is no logic to that idea.
As for the trailer of 'Dune' (2020), I think it is fair to say something "looks" like s*%t, as that is what a trailer is: the most sellable representation of the film. If that looks bad, then what does the rest of the film look like? There is logic to the scope of that thought. But if someone says after viewing a trailer "the film is horrible" that wouldn't make any sense, there is no logic to that. No one knows if a movie is good based on a trailer, but we can know if a movie has good visuals based on the trailer.
Last edited:
Bassman2003
Veteran
I think the movie looked dark and full of angst. That seems to be popular with the kids these days. A young person seemingly floating through chaos. All he needed was a phone in his hand... I jest but if any part of the future looks like what is depicted in movies then I am happy to expire while we are still in present times! 
As far as opinions and listening to others, all I will say is to have some respect for situation at hand. While one may not like the style or approach of the director, he is at the helm of major release movies. Until others have those same credentials, it is disrespectful imho to say absolute negative things. We can all tell our story when they release our own major film. Otherwise, it is just a movie.
As far as opinions and listening to others, all I will say is to have some respect for situation at hand. While one may not like the style or approach of the director, he is at the helm of major release movies. Until others have those same credentials, it is disrespectful imho to say absolute negative things. We can all tell our story when they release our own major film. Otherwise, it is just a movie.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
When did they say that?
Edward James Olmos says at the end, "It's too bad she won't live. Then again, who does?"
They were not artificially terminated. Roy Batty dies of old age as he's giving the tears in the rain speech. The only reason Ford has to hunt them is because they've come to earth. But they're still going to die young.
Then there's the scene where Roy kills Tyrell. First, he quizzes him on all the various ways Roy has thought of extending their lives, and Tyrell informs him that they tried all of them and they all failed. One left the subjects with a disease so fatal that they were dead before they left the operating table.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
I'm still convinced you are joking.