Blade Runner 2099 Sequel Series Coming from Ridley Scott(consequence.net)
consequence.net
Blade Runner 2099 Sequel Series Coming from Ridley Scott
https://consequence.net/2022/02/ridley-scott-blade-runner-2099/
152 comments
I loved 2049. Thought it was a great film. But it was a great film on its own. It didn't really need the ties to the original. Does the blade runner world really need another piece? Well, idk. I guess I would say its probably going to be pretty good, but I'd suspect trying to embrace the existing canon is going to harm the potential of the movie more than it will help. The 50 year time jumps are good though.
It really cruxes on their being a story to tell.
It's like people asking if they're going to do another film with K? (Which I think is symptom of cinema being saturated with feel good movies where there is no conflict or sacrifice, possibly in funny costumes...). He's utterly finished at the end of 2049, there isn't any more to say.
I don't know what it would look like but I think a relatively obvious road to go down would probably the ethics of general AI in computers. If you do have your own Joi, is she a slave? Does she "is", at all?
I really hope they land it if it gets made, although at worst it'll probably be a really pretty if confusing mess, which is better than most TV shows.
It's like people asking if they're going to do another film with K? (Which I think is symptom of cinema being saturated with feel good movies where there is no conflict or sacrifice, possibly in funny costumes...). He's utterly finished at the end of 2049, there isn't any more to say.
I don't know what it would look like but I think a relatively obvious road to go down would probably the ethics of general AI in computers. If you do have your own Joi, is she a slave? Does she "is", at all?
I really hope they land it if it gets made, although at worst it'll probably be a really pretty if confusing mess, which is better than most TV shows.
2049 was dennis Villeneuve though. The same person behind sicario, arrival, and dune. If anything the endorsement goes the other way.
And I just realized Villeneuve is enlisted to direct Rendezvous with Rama! Shut up and take my money!
God ... Sicario is so good ...
I agree, when Ridley Scott does something nowadays all I can think about is how he will ruin it. Villeneuve is an absolutely amazing director, but my personal feelings towards Ridley Scott after Prometheus and Alien Covenant is that he should retire, his job in ruining the Alien universe is done.
<Prometheus spoilers>
Prometheus had some good pieces - I particularly enjoyed the travel to the alien world and its vistas. Arguably this is 90% special effects instead of talented directing, but worthy of my time nonetheless. The movie does fall apart when they start exploring, though...
Prometheus had some good pieces - I particularly enjoyed the travel to the alien world and its vistas. Arguably this is 90% special effects instead of talented directing, but worthy of my time nonetheless. The movie does fall apart when they start exploring, though...
For what it's worth, I watched Prometheus before watching Alien and loved it.
I think it's a great film on its own, and the people I've met who didn't like it expressed sentiments similar to yours (ruining the Alien universe").
I think it's a great film on its own, and the people I've met who didn't like it expressed sentiments similar to yours (ruining the Alien universe").
I'll try and write some thoughts on this so maybe you can understand where I'm coming from.
I feel that a lot that makes Prometheus a good movie in itself is how it's paced and the graphical effects, albeit it still suffers from bad writing in a lot of places. The story per-se however is a complete dumpster fire because it changes and retcons the Alien universe lore to fit a story that perhaps didn't need to be told. At the same time there were deleted scenes that literally would have added 10-15 minutes to the run time and would have made it at least a 20% better Alien movie.
What makes a good movie and what makes a great sequel/prequel/movie in an established universe are two different sets of things. A good movie can be a good moviein itself but at the same time an absolutely terrible sequel/prequel/movie in an established universe. If you're working on an original idea then all bets are off, but if the work you're doing is in the exact same universe as preceding works then it needs to follow the lore of that universe - or at least NOT contradict previously established things. And you have to ask yourself - is the story that you're telling belonging in this universe? Does it enrich it? Does it bring something new? And by this you answer if the movie is worth actually making from an art point of view.
Would you like to see a modern version of the Mona Lisa painted in 3D on a computer? What if this art would have a blonde woman in it? With curly hair? And skimpy clothing? It can be a great work of art in itself, but has no business piggy backing on the Mona Lisa original.
As another example, there is a school of thought to subvert expectations by writing really dumb stuff, whereas you could subvert expectations in a manner that fits the universe. Star Wars VII, VIII, IX, Prometheus, Alien: Covenant and a lot of other works basically step all over established lore to tell submediocre stories, thus harming the universe in the process. I mean with Star Wars there's a whole 'nother can of worms - they literally made a huge part of the universe that exists non-canon. Why would you discard a lot of good stuff just so you can push your sub-mediocre stuff is beyond me, but hey, it's their IP, they do with it what they wish. I just can't be over the moon about it.
I feel that a lot that makes Prometheus a good movie in itself is how it's paced and the graphical effects, albeit it still suffers from bad writing in a lot of places. The story per-se however is a complete dumpster fire because it changes and retcons the Alien universe lore to fit a story that perhaps didn't need to be told. At the same time there were deleted scenes that literally would have added 10-15 minutes to the run time and would have made it at least a 20% better Alien movie.
What makes a good movie and what makes a great sequel/prequel/movie in an established universe are two different sets of things. A good movie can be a good moviein itself but at the same time an absolutely terrible sequel/prequel/movie in an established universe. If you're working on an original idea then all bets are off, but if the work you're doing is in the exact same universe as preceding works then it needs to follow the lore of that universe - or at least NOT contradict previously established things. And you have to ask yourself - is the story that you're telling belonging in this universe? Does it enrich it? Does it bring something new? And by this you answer if the movie is worth actually making from an art point of view.
Would you like to see a modern version of the Mona Lisa painted in 3D on a computer? What if this art would have a blonde woman in it? With curly hair? And skimpy clothing? It can be a great work of art in itself, but has no business piggy backing on the Mona Lisa original.
As another example, there is a school of thought to subvert expectations by writing really dumb stuff, whereas you could subvert expectations in a manner that fits the universe. Star Wars VII, VIII, IX, Prometheus, Alien: Covenant and a lot of other works basically step all over established lore to tell submediocre stories, thus harming the universe in the process. I mean with Star Wars there's a whole 'nother can of worms - they literally made a huge part of the universe that exists non-canon. Why would you discard a lot of good stuff just so you can push your sub-mediocre stuff is beyond me, but hey, it's their IP, they do with it what they wish. I just can't be over the moon about it.
2049 was directed by Denis Villeneuve. Ridley Scott hasn't done anything well in decades. I don't expect this new one to be good.
That isn't true. The first season of Raised by Wolves is a masterpiece and key episodes (some of its best) were directed by him.
It's gnostic existential sci-fi horror with gorgeous set-pieces and style evocative of LOT 2046's more out there designs. Amanda Collin's emulation of an android is the best I've ever seen.
It's gnostic existential sci-fi horror with gorgeous set-pieces and style evocative of LOT 2046's more out there designs. Amanda Collin's emulation of an android is the best I've ever seen.
>The first season of Raised by Wolves is a masterpiece
What? It's so poorly written it's even amazing.
What? It's so poorly written it's even amazing.
You don't offer any evidence for a rebuttal. But I'd be happy to address specifics you believe are examples of its poor writing.
When making critical comments, can you please use more substantive words than "amazing" without evidence? There's no content there on its own. What examples do you have from the series that cause you surprise or wonder (in the negative)?
I believe the existential meditations on a largely evil demiurge figure are fresh takes in the genre. The birth of a serpent from an android's body that could be the insane prison warden of a far-flung planet and the odd forms of punishment the Mithraic people mete out (like the explosive helmet tethered to an android caretaker) are lovely adornments on a thoughtfully realized world.
When making critical comments, can you please use more substantive words than "amazing" without evidence? There's no content there on its own. What examples do you have from the series that cause you surprise or wonder (in the negative)?
I believe the existential meditations on a largely evil demiurge figure are fresh takes in the genre. The birth of a serpent from an android's body that could be the insane prison warden of a far-flung planet and the odd forms of punishment the Mithraic people mete out (like the explosive helmet tethered to an android caretaker) are lovely adornments on a thoughtfully realized world.
>But I'd be happy to address specifics you believe are examples of its poor writing
The first thing the robot build by the atheists does when her child is lost - is some pagan ritual. To be honest it was hard to take the rest seriously.
The whole story feels like someone is trying to tell a biblical story through a scifi setting (again) but can't find the right words. Or create believable characters. They are so primitive it's hard to feel anything about them.
It's hard to point out any evidence given that I finished the thing long time ago and did not like it one bit. All that is left is howling Mother afterimage and bitter taste.
The first thing the robot build by the atheists does when her child is lost - is some pagan ritual. To be honest it was hard to take the rest seriously.
The whole story feels like someone is trying to tell a biblical story through a scifi setting (again) but can't find the right words. Or create believable characters. They are so primitive it's hard to feel anything about them.
It's hard to point out any evidence given that I finished the thing long time ago and did not like it one bit. All that is left is howling Mother afterimage and bitter taste.
The Martian was 2015 and I thought that wasn't bad. Ridley Scott is 84 now though…
Agreed. At this point I am just happy there is any kind of great piece of sci-fi coming out. I think since Expanse it has been quite hard to find anything worth watching in that space.
Dune is pretty fantastic. It’s definitely not a movie that’s best enjoyed with tv speakers though.
For sure, seems like just Marvelification of all movies has been really annoying. Everything has the same style / humour and vagueness.
Am I the only one who hated the sequel? Nonsensical plot with flat characters and broody hero wandering wistfully on the backdrop of orange smoke.
Yeah, I didn't like the sequel too. It felt emotionally flat, I just couldn't connect, and the plot made no sense, or rather I felt I didn't care enough to try to make sense of it. I tried seeing it a second time, but just couldn't connect to anything.
Ironically it felt like something that was written and directed by an android (or rather, a replicant) trying to imitate emotions and symbolism.
Loved the original 1982 film and saw it many times, read and written about it, and know it by heart by now. So I was disappointed, but not too much, I expect this much from sequels. It's tough making a successful one.
Ironically it felt like something that was written and directed by an android (or rather, a replicant) trying to imitate emotions and symbolism.
Loved the original 1982 film and saw it many times, read and written about it, and know it by heart by now. So I was disappointed, but not too much, I expect this much from sequels. It's tough making a successful one.
It's more visual art movie than a movie with any emotional affect to the characters for me.
You're not alone. Denis has a great technical eye but Sicario so far is his closest to a great film.
Speaking of technical merits slipping a Mickey to a parched audience, see: The Mandalorian.
Speaking of technical merits slipping a Mickey to a parched audience, see: The Mandalorian.
I disagree. It's highly subjective but I think Prisoners is much better than Sicario. Enemy is very good, too, and I'd probably rate it his second best. I still haven't seen the Dune remake, however.
Sicario sets a pretty high standard though, it’s a very good movie.
You're not alone. I didn't make it past the first 30 minutes or so. Utter rubbish, cashing in on the classic original.
Tying yourself to the established canon is limiting in a lot of respects, but I think successfully pulling off a fulfilling sequel would mean a lot more for fans.
Critics would probably also notice the attention to thematic continuity and pull the public in :)
Critics would probably also notice the attention to thematic continuity and pull the public in :)
I enjoyed his recent movie "The Last Duel". I thought it was unbelievable, but after reading the book it is historically accurate. The fight scene is blow-by-blow what actually happened. Sooo much better than those silly superhero movies.
I'll definitely see more Scott movies!
I'll definitely see more Scott movies!
I had no idea he directed this! I'm a huge Ridley Scott fan but apparently not enough to know that he just released a movie. I'll have to give this a watch.
He has two movies end 2021: The Last Duel and House of Gucci. Kudos to him for having such energy for his age.
He's like Clint Eastwood; if he stops making movies he dies.
On first watching, 2049 went straight to the top of my all-time faves. And... I can't imagine where you'd take the story from there. My imagination is limited of course, but I always have those cynical thoughts, 'they made a lot of cash on the film and want to make more and the sequel will be cliché, or tortured, or insipid.' Phantom Menace, early POTA sequels, BTTF sequels were just money grabs.
But I have hope. 2049 itself was a sequel, right? Most of the MCU are technically sequels, and pretty good. The latest Star Trek reboot was enjoyable.
What do you think?
But I have hope. 2049 itself was a sequel, right? Most of the MCU are technically sequels, and pretty good. The latest Star Trek reboot was enjoyable.
What do you think?
> The latest Star Trek reboot was enjoyable.
they were pretty terrible star trek movies - because they didn't have anything of note to say about humanity and society like the old star trek would.
These reboots are merely action/adventure movies with a star trek setting. In fact, they use the star trek name to generate marketing hype. Those films would not have done nearly so well had it not borrowed it.
they were pretty terrible star trek movies - because they didn't have anything of note to say about humanity and society like the old star trek would.
These reboots are merely action/adventure movies with a star trek setting. In fact, they use the star trek name to generate marketing hype. Those films would not have done nearly so well had it not borrowed it.
there are quite a few of sequels which are as good or better then the original. Terminator 2, Aliens, The Empire Strikes Back come to mind.
But IMO, the likelihood goes down exponentially the more sequels they make.
But IMO, the likelihood goes down exponentially the more sequels they make.
> I always have those cynical thoughts, 'they made a lot of cash on the film and want to make more and the sequel
I think it was a flop, actually. But I also loved it.
I think it was a flop, actually. But I also loved it.
I personally would love to see how things are outside Earth in the Blade Runner universe. Probably bleak.
If you go by the source material, Philip K Dick's novels, they are extremely bleak. 3-5 people huddled in tiny, isolated camps insulated from a toxic environment, where the only joy available is taking drugs that allows them dream they are living back on Earth.
Which novel is this from?
Several! But I think his best "Mars is actually a shithole" novel is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Stigmata_of_Palmer_E...
Martian Time Slip is another one, more focused on Mars (duh). But I agree, Stigmata is bleaker.
I would like to see things you people have never seen; attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion ... C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.
Ridley Scott is 84 years old and is currently producing 69 different projects and directing 10 of them. I have nothing else to say here.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000631/
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000631/
> producing 69 different projects and directing 10 of them
a producer is basically the money man - they procure funds, and organize the pay and contracts etc. They are in no real way, responsible for the artistic direction nor the script etc. They might have some influence on the hiring of the actors.
Putting a famous director in as a producer is merely a marketing tactic - people who would casually like such a director would assume the movie is going to be directed by them and thus might watch it.
a producer is basically the money man - they procure funds, and organize the pay and contracts etc. They are in no real way, responsible for the artistic direction nor the script etc. They might have some influence on the hiring of the actors.
Putting a famous director in as a producer is merely a marketing tactic - people who would casually like such a director would assume the movie is going to be directed by them and thus might watch it.
Having someone as a producer is like saying "X approves this movie".
You’re thinking of the Executive Producer title, which indeed often just means their name is attached to the project to attract funding.
But each production usually has a single actual producer with great authority, traditionally including final cut in Hollywood: if they don’t like the finished movie, the producer may hire another director to shoot more footage and re-cut.
But each production usually has a single actual producer with great authority, traditionally including final cut in Hollywood: if they don’t like the finished movie, the producer may hire another director to shoot more footage and re-cut.
Makes me feel less bad about being so bored watching Raised By Wolves, as I was expecting an epic TV show on par with the exploration of the Aliens universe.
Wow. I had no idea he was in that phase of life. Really changes the name based endorsement and also explains some recent activity.
I think he's getting more irritable as he gets older (and I think he still has a chip on his shoulder for being criticised for being too visual - should a bird not sing?), but wasn't The Last Duel supposed to have been good?
As for irritable: Some of these press outbursts are definitely directors trying to whip up some press for their movies, but he got in some hot water for saying
--- “The best films are driven by the characters,” he said, “and we’ll come to superheroes after this if you want, because I’ll crush it. I’ll f*ing crush it. They’re f*ing boring as s*." and "Their scripts are not any fucking good" ---
Is he wrong? They're mostly not bad* now (marvel ones at least), but they're utterly sedated and breeding a new generation of media-consumers who've literally never seen a "good" movie (By which I mean something driven by a director rather than a producer)
As for irritable: Some of these press outbursts are definitely directors trying to whip up some press for their movies, but he got in some hot water for saying
--- “The best films are driven by the characters,” he said, “and we’ll come to superheroes after this if you want, because I’ll crush it. I’ll f*ing crush it. They’re f*ing boring as s*." and "Their scripts are not any fucking good" ---
Is he wrong? They're mostly not bad* now (marvel ones at least), but they're utterly sedated and breeding a new generation of media-consumers who've literally never seen a "good" movie (By which I mean something driven by a director rather than a producer)
[deleted]
This a personal opinion, but I think the most interesting thing in the Blade Runner universe aren't even Replicants.
We know Replicants are used for space travel and colony labor, and we also know Earth is overpopulated and mostly stripped of resources. I want to see more of this dynamic, space exploration, life in the colonies, what politics are like on a dying planet. Who the other big evil corporations are. How does space travel work? Who owns it? What do colonies produce? Etc.
2049 had a nice story, but it pales in comparison to what's potentially available in such a rich and deep set universe.
We know Replicants are used for space travel and colony labor, and we also know Earth is overpopulated and mostly stripped of resources. I want to see more of this dynamic, space exploration, life in the colonies, what politics are like on a dying planet. Who the other big evil corporations are. How does space travel work? Who owns it? What do colonies produce? Etc.
2049 had a nice story, but it pales in comparison to what's potentially available in such a rich and deep set universe.
Unpopular opinion here, I'm sure, but this line of thinking is precisely what kneecapped Star Wars: the need to know everything. World-building is the antithesis of character-building.
We fall in love with this stories because of the characters. We then become fascinated with the possibility of the worlds, then the worlds are built out, and then it sucks, and then people go "well, no, the world should have been built this way or that way," and then that's tried, and it sucks too, and now the franchise has lost all that made it interesting in the first place and all sci-fi just kind of devolves into one bland soup of all the other sci-fi, and everyone along the way forgets to write compelling characters.
And who are the compelling characters in Blade Runner? Those who were written about: Replicants, and those who hunt them. The world was not the point, the characters and their conflict/struggles and the issues those raise were the point.
Why do we need to know about the other big evil corporations, when the sense that there's only one, and that's the one that builds the Replicants, is so much more compelling? Not to mention that the primary function of the Tyrell/Wallace Corporation is to serve the characters.
Who cares how space travel works as long as it does? Who cares what the colonies produce, unless the fruits of that production can aid in telling an interesting story revolving around a character as interesting as Roy Batty? Can you really tell a compelling story about a worker on an off-world colony -- and if the answer is "yes," why does it need to be part of Blade Runner, and not its own thing? The colonies are almost certainly not interesting because they're better than Earth -- there's likely less conflict.
Hollywood folks are incredibly influenced by precisely this kind of discourse on the internet (source: I work in Hollywood), and it drives me nuts because it's just the blind leading the blind.
Going "what else could happen in this world" feels good, but it almost always is the death knell of a franchise, because it's fundamentally the wrong question to ask when writing fiction. The question that results in good story-telling is "who is this person," or "who does this happen to," and allow the world-building to grow organically from there.
We fall in love with this stories because of the characters. We then become fascinated with the possibility of the worlds, then the worlds are built out, and then it sucks, and then people go "well, no, the world should have been built this way or that way," and then that's tried, and it sucks too, and now the franchise has lost all that made it interesting in the first place and all sci-fi just kind of devolves into one bland soup of all the other sci-fi, and everyone along the way forgets to write compelling characters.
And who are the compelling characters in Blade Runner? Those who were written about: Replicants, and those who hunt them. The world was not the point, the characters and their conflict/struggles and the issues those raise were the point.
Why do we need to know about the other big evil corporations, when the sense that there's only one, and that's the one that builds the Replicants, is so much more compelling? Not to mention that the primary function of the Tyrell/Wallace Corporation is to serve the characters.
Who cares how space travel works as long as it does? Who cares what the colonies produce, unless the fruits of that production can aid in telling an interesting story revolving around a character as interesting as Roy Batty? Can you really tell a compelling story about a worker on an off-world colony -- and if the answer is "yes," why does it need to be part of Blade Runner, and not its own thing? The colonies are almost certainly not interesting because they're better than Earth -- there's likely less conflict.
Hollywood folks are incredibly influenced by precisely this kind of discourse on the internet (source: I work in Hollywood), and it drives me nuts because it's just the blind leading the blind.
Going "what else could happen in this world" feels good, but it almost always is the death knell of a franchise, because it's fundamentally the wrong question to ask when writing fiction. The question that results in good story-telling is "who is this person," or "who does this happen to," and allow the world-building to grow organically from there.
I hope 2099 explorers the stories of people/replicants away from earth. No need to bring back to old characters (although I guess they could bring back certain replicant models).
Not directly related (some) but the setting of Alien/Aliens is awesome. A deep space ship just out there on its own, great vibe.
then you would really enjoy "the expanse" - esp. the latter seasons.
"A system of cells interlinked within cells interlinked within cells interlinked within one stem..."
This got fixed in my brain since watched the movie. Such a powerful wordplay that make sense in the context of fuzzy testing an android for signs of emotions, like the desire to connect with someone.
It was released already into a new age of significant change in cinema values. Everything since is too safe, too clean and reassuring. We need some punk (in blockbuster) movies again.
This got fixed in my brain since watched the movie. Such a powerful wordplay that make sense in the context of fuzzy testing an android for signs of emotions, like the desire to connect with someone.
It was released already into a new age of significant change in cinema values. Everything since is too safe, too clean and reassuring. We need some punk (in blockbuster) movies again.
Much of that baseline test actually comes from Nabokov's "Pale Fire" - which is also the book Joi picks up when she says "do you want to read to me".
The second baseline test where K fails is such a hard to watch scene. it’s such a short scene but personally the highlight of the movie because of what it means.
He’s becoming human and they need to turn him off.
He’s becoming human and they need to turn him off.
After the letdowns that are Raised by Wolves and the Alien prequels; I’ll pass on a Ridley Scott series, til I hear otherwise.
I like Raised by Wolves. A lot of it is "here's another unrealistic coincidence" and "that character has a lot of plot armor", but I'm hoping it's because the overarching mystery story makes it that way. I'll be disappointed if this turns out to be sloppy writing.
Certainly a chunk of the writing so far is cliche. I'm pretty sure I saw parts of this show a dozen times in various 90s shows and 50s/60s/70s books. Anybody remember Earth 2?
Although the child actors are quite bad at acting, the adults largely make up for it.
The environment does feel like a Star Trek jungle set, where it's hard to suspend disbelief that it's not just a few hundred square meter outdoor stage in South Africa. But we've been suspending disbelief on low res sci fi shows for years, so long as the story is good, and even when the writing is bad.
For instance Babylon 5 is one of my all time favorites and the writing is bad and the acting is worse. A couple actors elevate and save it (Peter Jurasik, Andreas Katsulas, Ed Wasser, Walter Koenig). But what really saves it is story: not effects, not dialog, not delivery, just compelling world-building story.
I'm hoping Raised by Wolves turns into something great, but so far as it's at least good, I'm along for the ride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHAwFtJrp3c
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor
Certainly a chunk of the writing so far is cliche. I'm pretty sure I saw parts of this show a dozen times in various 90s shows and 50s/60s/70s books. Anybody remember Earth 2?
Although the child actors are quite bad at acting, the adults largely make up for it.
The environment does feel like a Star Trek jungle set, where it's hard to suspend disbelief that it's not just a few hundred square meter outdoor stage in South Africa. But we've been suspending disbelief on low res sci fi shows for years, so long as the story is good, and even when the writing is bad.
For instance Babylon 5 is one of my all time favorites and the writing is bad and the acting is worse. A couple actors elevate and save it (Peter Jurasik, Andreas Katsulas, Ed Wasser, Walter Koenig). But what really saves it is story: not effects, not dialog, not delivery, just compelling world-building story.
I'm hoping Raised by Wolves turns into something great, but so far as it's at least good, I'm along for the ride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHAwFtJrp3c
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor
>overarching mystery story
Its like Lost or Battlestar Galactica, a lot of nonsense they make up on the spot one episode ahead of filming.
Its like Lost or Battlestar Galactica, a lot of nonsense they make up on the spot one episode ahead of filming.
I do like the show, for the most part, but I’m really bothered by the color palette, which isn’t something if often pay much attention too. It’s just so desaturated and drab. Maybe they’re trying to go for some alien atmospherics vibe or something, idk.
I’m liking Raised by Wolves, but the birth kind of was a let down. I’m thinking there is way more to it so I’m holding on to hope.
I also liked the Alien prequels. They weren’t as good as the original, but I thought they were still interesting enough. I loved the old ship with the pilot in Prometheus, but I feel like it wasn’t finished either and there could have been more.
I also liked the Alien prequels. They weren’t as good as the original, but I thought they were still interesting enough. I loved the old ship with the pilot in Prometheus, but I feel like it wasn’t finished either and there could have been more.
Yeah, the last quarter or last third of Season 1 was a drop in story quality. But Season 2 has picked up and gotten good again.
One thing I'm enjoying, unlike in 90s sci fi, is when the characters call out obvious threats and take them as a given, like "that creature has probably been brain chipped and given as a tool to track you".
Indeed, there is no free lunch in dystopia land, whereas 90s sci fi would have the otherwise smart characters be incredibly dumb in situations like this.
One thing I'm enjoying, unlike in 90s sci fi, is when the characters call out obvious threats and take them as a given, like "that creature has probably been brain chipped and given as a tool to track you".
Indeed, there is no free lunch in dystopia land, whereas 90s sci fi would have the otherwise smart characters be incredibly dumb in situations like this.
This is exciting! Blade Runner is my favorite dystopia (secret utopia) world. (It's fake dystopia because mankind has pwned the Fermi paradox, so who cares if one out of a billion ecosystems has collapsed?)
It's an enormous and very cool world to explore. There is plenty of material to mine, especially since to get to fill in 50 years of lore to account for self-replicating robots. Definitely segues into space opera territory with replicant v human corps Dune/CHOAM/Emporer style intrigue. My guess is that to justify drabbiness they'll posit a long running war between replicants and humans that perhaps leave Earth cut off from her colonies. Maybe one side "won" but pockets of resistance remain. Part of it would follow a pocket of taboo h/r cooperation where humans and replicants live together by choice. (This is juicy messaging for post-woke hollywood when they can spread an acceptance message without pandering to an actual identity group. What would make it really interesting is if replicants are only stronger than humans as much as men are stronger than women.)
It's an enormous and very cool world to explore. There is plenty of material to mine, especially since to get to fill in 50 years of lore to account for self-replicating robots. Definitely segues into space opera territory with replicant v human corps Dune/CHOAM/Emporer style intrigue. My guess is that to justify drabbiness they'll posit a long running war between replicants and humans that perhaps leave Earth cut off from her colonies. Maybe one side "won" but pockets of resistance remain. Part of it would follow a pocket of taboo h/r cooperation where humans and replicants live together by choice. (This is juicy messaging for post-woke hollywood when they can spread an acceptance message without pandering to an actual identity group. What would make it really interesting is if replicants are only stronger than humans as much as men are stronger than women.)
The Expanse did an amazing job of featuring powerful women and people of color and focusing on the poor and downtrodden without coming off as forced and "woke". The rest of Hollywood should take note.
The books tend to harp on certain characters skin color over and over. It definitely comes off as forced after the 10th time.
I didn’t have that interpretation when I read the books.
Not read the books apart from the first one, the show definitely didn't feel forced "diversity". Every character was unique and played their role in the story.
As long as he confines himself to the role of executive producer, doesn't direct or write the script, but does a good job of filling those roles with competent people, it could be entertaining.
I'm fine with that and he may let his fame be sold as a promotional measure.
I really liked Blade Runner 2049, but I love Blade Runner. I can always watch that movie, and have watched it all my life.
While Blade Runner 2049 is an excellent movie and has Ridley Scott's endorsement, I cannot bring myself to see it as canon. Its bleak and profoundly hopeless view was not foreshadowed in the original, which had a sense of humor and awe that was stripped from 2049.
While Blade Runner 2049 is an excellent movie and has Ridley Scott's endorsement, I cannot bring myself to see it as canon. Its bleak and profoundly hopeless view was not foreshadowed in the original, which had a sense of humor and awe that was stripped from 2049.
Of course you have watched Blade Runner all your life; they kept coming out with new versions!
True that!
Can someone explain to me the appeal of Blade Runner? I love most sci-fi, but I simply couldn’t make it through the first movie. I thought maybe the newer movie would be better. Nope. Couldn’t finish it. It’s probably the only sci-fi I haven’t liked. But, so many people seem to like it that I realize that I must be missing something.
Lots of sci-fi is kind of heavy handed, but Blade Runner has a little more nuance and ambiguity. There are things left unstated but implied, and the films don't give you all the answers. There's symbolism that's the viewer can interpret however they wish.
They're films that I recommend watching once, then reading a bit about them, then watching them again - they do grow on you.
They're films that I recommend watching once, then reading a bit about them, then watching them again - they do grow on you.
[deleted]
Most of my opinions towards this news are informed by RLM's re:view of Blade Runner.
https://youtu.be/adjfTktpIzg
https://youtu.be/adjfTktpIzg
They should set it in San Francisco like in Philip K. Dick's original story, but since Scott was the one who changed it to L.A. in the first place he probably won't.
Blade Runner 2049 I think has my all-time favorite "villain" of any movie I've ever seen. I put "villain" in quotes because he isn't actually a villain at all, and the movie falsely categorizes him as evil. To see why, here's Wikipedia's description of him:
> Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) is the sinister CEO and founder of Wallace Corporation, which dominates replicant production in 2049. A genius genetic engineer, his genetically modified crops and livestock solved a global food crisis – which then gave him enough wealth and political clout to lift the ban on replicant production. Wallace bought out the bankrupt Tyrell Corporation (which had collapsed after several revolts by Nexus-8 replicants). Wallace improved the genetic programming of his new “Nexus-9” replicants to the point that they cannot disobey the orders of humans, even if the order is to commit suicide. By 2049, Wallace Corporation has revitalized the replicant industry and is a major megacorporation with numerous other subsidiaries in other fields, such as Joi unit digital AI holograms.
> Wallace is blind, but uses cybernetic implants in his neck to interact with various computers and “see” through flying miniature camera units.
> The secret of making replicants that can reproduce died with Tyrell, and Wallace is obsessed with learning it. By 2049, Earth is suffering from resource depletion and heavy pollution, and it was Wallace’s genetically modified foods and new replicants that not only staved off extinction, but allowed humanity to spread to the off-world colonies. Nonetheless, Wallace is frustrated that humanity has only spread to nine other planets, when he wants to see it explode across thousands of planets in the galaxy. Lacking the capacity to build enough replicants for such an endeavor, Wallace is convinced that replicants capable of reproduction on their own are the answer.
OK Blade Runner 2049, so you’re telling me that the “evil villain” of your movie saved earth from a mass starvation, got rich off of that, then used his clout and money to smash the regulatory state so that he could give all of humanity personal robot slaves (so no one ever has to do hard manual labor ever again), then cured his own (and presumably others’) blindness, and now is devoting 100% of his resources to Star Trek off onto thousands of other planets across the galaxy? And /all/ by 2049 (which most of us here have a good chance of living to)? That’s your evil villain?! Because all of this seems just 100%, non-ironically good to me[1], and I wished I lived in a world where people could be this competent.
[1] Caveat: Ok, so I’m assuming the Blade Runner replicants are actually just robots without real consciousness/qualia. If they do have qualia, then I definitely wouldn't support enslaving them, and would categorize Wallace back in the “evil (albeit complex) villain” category.
> Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) is the sinister CEO and founder of Wallace Corporation, which dominates replicant production in 2049. A genius genetic engineer, his genetically modified crops and livestock solved a global food crisis – which then gave him enough wealth and political clout to lift the ban on replicant production. Wallace bought out the bankrupt Tyrell Corporation (which had collapsed after several revolts by Nexus-8 replicants). Wallace improved the genetic programming of his new “Nexus-9” replicants to the point that they cannot disobey the orders of humans, even if the order is to commit suicide. By 2049, Wallace Corporation has revitalized the replicant industry and is a major megacorporation with numerous other subsidiaries in other fields, such as Joi unit digital AI holograms.
> Wallace is blind, but uses cybernetic implants in his neck to interact with various computers and “see” through flying miniature camera units.
> The secret of making replicants that can reproduce died with Tyrell, and Wallace is obsessed with learning it. By 2049, Earth is suffering from resource depletion and heavy pollution, and it was Wallace’s genetically modified foods and new replicants that not only staved off extinction, but allowed humanity to spread to the off-world colonies. Nonetheless, Wallace is frustrated that humanity has only spread to nine other planets, when he wants to see it explode across thousands of planets in the galaxy. Lacking the capacity to build enough replicants for such an endeavor, Wallace is convinced that replicants capable of reproduction on their own are the answer.
OK Blade Runner 2049, so you’re telling me that the “evil villain” of your movie saved earth from a mass starvation, got rich off of that, then used his clout and money to smash the regulatory state so that he could give all of humanity personal robot slaves (so no one ever has to do hard manual labor ever again), then cured his own (and presumably others’) blindness, and now is devoting 100% of his resources to Star Trek off onto thousands of other planets across the galaxy? And /all/ by 2049 (which most of us here have a good chance of living to)? That’s your evil villain?! Because all of this seems just 100%, non-ironically good to me[1], and I wished I lived in a world where people could be this competent.
[1] Caveat: Ok, so I’m assuming the Blade Runner replicants are actually just robots without real consciousness/qualia. If they do have qualia, then I definitely wouldn't support enslaving them, and would categorize Wallace back in the “evil (albeit complex) villain” category.
> personal robot slaves
Everything you said is true, except for the "robot" part. Almost the whole point of the story is that replicants are human. He's breeding human slaves.
Everything you said is true, except for the "robot" part. Almost the whole point of the story is that replicants are human. He's breeding human slaves.
Replicants were bio-engineered, not bred. They weren't human, they were superior to humans in many ways with the notable exception of life expectancy. So it was more the classic question of what does it mean to be alive and what rights would/should a non-human lifeform have.
The replicants are clearly conscious.
Yawn. I made it about 1/2 through 2049 and just got bored. Where has all the creativity gone in film. It's just one remake / sequel after another.
If you can't see the creativity in 2049 that's on you IMO.
Villeneuve is probably the best director in his area of film right now (not necessarily sci-fi), his work is emotionally mature and challenges audiences without mocking them, calling it uncreative is ridiculous.
Villeneuve is probably the best director in his area of film right now (not necessarily sci-fi), his work is emotionally mature and challenges audiences without mocking them, calling it uncreative is ridiculous.
Does this description also apply to his latest film (Dune)? Because I'd describe it as the opposite of that.
Dune is a visual masterpiece. Some people are just incapable of appreciating art.
I... I'm not so sure. I really like the universe of Frank Herbert's dune, but a lot of the set design on Dune is just... boring. The ornithopters are built like a Cybertruck, which doesn't make sense in an era where computers were destroyed long ago. The monolithic buildings and spaceships look more like a Quake 2 map than they do professional VFX. Having gone into the film with an open mind, I was severely let down by the visual side of things. Even the cinematography felt... fine. Surprisingly, I thought Dave Bautista and Jason Momoa were the strongest parts of the film.
Probably not, but that’s likely a problem with the source material more than anything, Dune is nothing but your typical fantasy story of boy discovers he has magic powers and saves the world.
Maybe it's just not your kind of film, or you weren't in the mood. There was _very_ little wrong with that movie.
Jared Leto
Too long, too slow.
IMO neither of those are flaws of it. It's a movie not afraid to let scenes breathe and not afraid to take time to set the tone. You do have to buy into it some though, if you're just counting the seconds until the next big thing happens it's not going to be a fun time.
It doesn’t take a full extra hour to let scenes breathe. It was poorly paced, the number one complaint. About as objective as a criticism gets.
Oh boy, you’d really hate Too Old to Die Young, which I loved.
I absolutely loved 2049. Haven't seen the original, yet. hides under desk
But have you read the original novella? I enjoyed both films, but "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" has much more depth to its questions about humanity than either of them. It also illustrates Deckard's disfunctional nature better.
Mercerism is one of the weirdest things I've read about in any book. It makes sense it wouldn't be included in the movies, it's almost an unfilmable concept, I think.
PKD is one of my favorite authors. Nobody before or since has been able to more accurately capture the slippery nature of reality, in my opinion.
PKD is one of my favorite authors. Nobody before or since has been able to more accurately capture the slippery nature of reality, in my opinion.
Mercerism is one of the best parts of the story. A lonely religion based on simulated shared Sisyphean suffering is just so symbolic of PKD’s overall view of life, it’s delicious to read. But I agree, it works better in prose than it would on film. Still, I kept hoping they’d Easter egg it into the films somewhere just as a nod to those who have read the story.
I very much enjoy PKD’s writing, though he gets hard to follow in his later stuff as he slipped further into drug abuse and mental illness.
I very much enjoy PKD’s writing, though he gets hard to follow in his later stuff as he slipped further into drug abuse and mental illness.
The original is basically worse as a film than 2049.
However, it's better, because of the sheer power of the visuals and worldbuilding. Some things in it have not aged well (like the "love" scene), but it is still simply jaw-dropping. It's what Scott is just unmatched at doing. A villeneuve film probably makes more sense, but Ridley Scott does Ridley Scott better than anyone. Give him a good script and watch him fly.
They're both excellent, they don't need to compete. Be glad 2049 ever got made (similarly with Dune really).
However, it's better, because of the sheer power of the visuals and worldbuilding. Some things in it have not aged well (like the "love" scene), but it is still simply jaw-dropping. It's what Scott is just unmatched at doing. A villeneuve film probably makes more sense, but Ridley Scott does Ridley Scott better than anyone. Give him a good script and watch him fly.
They're both excellent, they don't need to compete. Be glad 2049 ever got made (similarly with Dune really).
2049 beats the original in cinematography imho - much better atmosphere and backdrops, despite the story being "simpler" (which, i actually prefer tbh). The original was a b-grade movie that was well made even with limited resources. 2049 is a Hollywood level high production value movie that can be enjoyed on the surface level, as well as have some intellectual meat in it.
The original is a masterpiece, but I wonder how much I’m reminiscing. Sean Young and Rutger Hauer we’re fantastic, though, so I do think there is something timeless about it. I have watched 2049 a couple of times now and still don’t see what everyone else sees as great about it. I’m willing to keep trying though.
I'm 34 and hadn't seen either of them until about two years ago. Fell in love with the original (well, the Final Cut) immediately. I watched 2049 shortly thereafter and, while I'm normally a, "Fuck remakes/sequels/franchises" curmudgeon, I actually thought it was pretty damn good.
Now, do I think it needed a sequel? No.
Now, do I think it needed a sequel? No.
i prefer 2049, but i only saw the original a year before. i thought there was a lot of cringeworthy stuff that hasn't aged well. some of the soundtrack, dialog etc.
The original stands up with 2049. Highly recommended
Whaaaaat 2049 was a masterpiece
Your username gives away a subtle disposition leaning towards Denis Villeneuve...
I was watching Dune 2021 on Microsoft Teams streaming (virtual company Christmas party from Youtube Movies), and the auto-diction translated Arrakis to Iraqis.
Suddenly the whole story make sense to me.
Suddenly the whole story make sense to me.
Would that mean watching the movie on YouTube via teams? As in crappy youtube quality through teams? Awful.
I'm annoyed you basically have to pirate a movie or go through the faff of actually buying a Blu-ray to watch things in uber-HD properly.
I'm annoyed you basically have to pirate a movie or go through the faff of actually buying a Blu-ray to watch things in uber-HD properly.
I think they mean they rented/bought Dune to watch, via YouTube's movie platform[1]. The host of the Microsoft Teams video meeting then likely shared their view of the YouTube screen (I don't know how it works in MS Teams, but, for example, I know Jitsi allows a meeting participant to embed a YouTube video for all to watch+listen to. It's surprisingly good quality)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd2DrxUi4H8
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd2DrxUi4H8
That doesn't mean they're wrong. 2049 is a very good movie.
It's a decent film but aesthetically it leans way too heavily on the original. When you have allusions to the Soviet Union and flying cars in a film in 2020 it just seems retro-futuristic and anachronistic rather than like science fiction.
To me, the Soviet aspect makes sense. There was a fear in the US in the 80s that Japan would surpass the US to become the dominant world economy, which was reflected in the original film. In 2049, the Japanese aspect hasn't been erased, but it also exists alongside imagery of Russia, which, if we consider the actions of the Russian government in the years leading up to this film, it fits from the same perspective of a fear of the US being dominated.
I'm not sure why the original film seemed to only focus on Japan, PKD's vision also included the USSR. In that sense, 2049 almost feels more faithful to the book.
As for the flying cars...they had flying cars in the original film, why would they get rid of that? Or do you mean that you expect they wouldn't look so much like our cars? (If the latter, I kinda agree.)
I'm not sure why the original film seemed to only focus on Japan, PKD's vision also included the USSR. In that sense, 2049 almost feels more faithful to the book.
As for the flying cars...they had flying cars in the original film, why would they get rid of that? Or do you mean that you expect they wouldn't look so much like our cars? (If the latter, I kinda agree.)
My comment is too old to edit now, but I just thought of something:
I saw a video on youtube awhile back about the making of the original Blade Runner. In it, they said that PKD did not live to see the film in theaters, but they were able to show him a 10-15 minute "highlight reel", which included shots of the flying cars. PKD said it was like they were reading his mind, it was so accurate.
So at least to PKD, the original Blade Runner's flying cars were canon. Not that I think the lack of design evolution between the two films seems too realistic, but given the events that occurred between the two films [0][1], I can see lots of technological progress being lost. Consider the scene in 2049 where K brings in the sample for Rachel and the desk employee says that they lost a lot of data during the blackout, and to not expect much for anything this old. Had all that not happened, I'd completely agree that the design of 2049's flying cars seemed too retro, that they would have pioneered new vehicle layouts by then.
[0] https://collider.com/blade-runner-timeline-explained/
[1] https://bladerunner.fandom.com/wiki/Timeline
Edit: Found the video where PKD seeing the highlight reel is mentioned: https://youtu.be/EByNb7F-A34?t=1556 (the whole video is worth a watch, the entirely-analog techniques they used are incredible)
I saw a video on youtube awhile back about the making of the original Blade Runner. In it, they said that PKD did not live to see the film in theaters, but they were able to show him a 10-15 minute "highlight reel", which included shots of the flying cars. PKD said it was like they were reading his mind, it was so accurate.
So at least to PKD, the original Blade Runner's flying cars were canon. Not that I think the lack of design evolution between the two films seems too realistic, but given the events that occurred between the two films [0][1], I can see lots of technological progress being lost. Consider the scene in 2049 where K brings in the sample for Rachel and the desk employee says that they lost a lot of data during the blackout, and to not expect much for anything this old. Had all that not happened, I'd completely agree that the design of 2049's flying cars seemed too retro, that they would have pioneered new vehicle layouts by then.
[0] https://collider.com/blade-runner-timeline-explained/
[1] https://bladerunner.fandom.com/wiki/Timeline
Edit: Found the video where PKD seeing the highlight reel is mentioned: https://youtu.be/EByNb7F-A34?t=1556 (the whole video is worth a watch, the entirely-analog techniques they used are incredible)
2049 was an incredible film in my opinion. Hooker sex scene and the baseline test were pretty fantastic.
The second time I watched 2049 I thought it was great. First time not so much. Not sure why I didn't like it the first time.
It was a remake / sequel, alright. A remake / sequel of Her
2048 was a fantastic depiction of modern male loneliness; unloved and invisible, yet with beautiful commercialized girls at one's finger tips.
"Her" didn't capture this well, and frankly I don't think Spike Jonze is the type of author who can. He's too popular to be that pathetic! The movie is great for other reasons, but behind its sci-fi lies a traditional romance movie plot.
"Her" didn't capture this well, and frankly I don't think Spike Jonze is the type of author who can. He's too popular to be that pathetic! The movie is great for other reasons, but behind its sci-fi lies a traditional romance movie plot.
Well when you put it that way, that just makes 2049 a remake / sequel of Drive
The flashbacks to the original were extremely lame. And I didn't love the story. But visually it was great, it's packed with really compelling images.
Highly superior to Dune which has a boring plot and mostly lacks compelling images. Seriously, where were the guild steersmen? The dragonfly vessels were okay but do you even remember a spaceship from Dune? Stellan Skarsgard was unrecognizable and boring in the villain role. Plus the fight scenes were horrible.
Highly superior to Dune which has a boring plot and mostly lacks compelling images. Seriously, where were the guild steersmen? The dragonfly vessels were okay but do you even remember a spaceship from Dune? Stellan Skarsgard was unrecognizable and boring in the villain role. Plus the fight scenes were horrible.
> Highly superior to Dune which has a boring plot and mostly lacks compelling images. Seriously, where were the guild steersmen? The dragonfly vessels were okay but do you even remember a spaceship from Dune? Stellan Skarsgard was unrecognizable and boring in the villain role. Plus the fight scenes were horrible.
What movie did you watch? I am so confused.
The _fight scenes_ were horrible? In what way? Even just the first fight scene with the shields was cool and well done.
The thopters were just _okay_? They were _brilliantly_ done, had really interesting special effects, etc.
The spaceship of note in the film would probably be the guild ship, whatever they're called, the hiliners? Looked nice to me. Dune doesn't really have a ton of spaceships, it's planet-centric which makes sense really.
And the plot was boring? I don't even know what to say, that story is very well loved and the movie didn't change too much.
What movie did you watch? I am so confused.
The _fight scenes_ were horrible? In what way? Even just the first fight scene with the shields was cool and well done.
The thopters were just _okay_? They were _brilliantly_ done, had really interesting special effects, etc.
The spaceship of note in the film would probably be the guild ship, whatever they're called, the hiliners? Looked nice to me. Dune doesn't really have a ton of spaceships, it's planet-centric which makes sense really.
And the plot was boring? I don't even know what to say, that story is very well loved and the movie didn't change too much.
> The _fight scenes_ were horrible? In what way? Even just the first fight scene with the shields was cool and well done.
The fight scenes are people slapping each other really fast. There's no weight to it.
> And the plot was boring? I don't even know what to say, that story is very well loved and the movie didn't change too much.
A more significant consideration than what happens is how it is relayed to the audience. The way the story in Dune unfolds is linear and boring. It is chracters in rooms having conversations to fill the audience in before the real plot starts. It's not exciting or interesting and few risks are taken.
One of the cool ideas in Dune is that there are no computers so people take a psychedelic drug to pilot spaceships. Maybe this is explained in some boring monologue or text flash but there's no reason it couldn't be shown and it certainly isn't.
It doesn't help that Timothy Chalamet and Zendaya are awful. The only notably good performance is Rebecca Ferguson (Jessica).
The fight scenes are people slapping each other really fast. There's no weight to it.
> And the plot was boring? I don't even know what to say, that story is very well loved and the movie didn't change too much.
A more significant consideration than what happens is how it is relayed to the audience. The way the story in Dune unfolds is linear and boring. It is chracters in rooms having conversations to fill the audience in before the real plot starts. It's not exciting or interesting and few risks are taken.
One of the cool ideas in Dune is that there are no computers so people take a psychedelic drug to pilot spaceships. Maybe this is explained in some boring monologue or text flash but there's no reason it couldn't be shown and it certainly isn't.
It doesn't help that Timothy Chalamet and Zendaya are awful. The only notably good performance is Rebecca Ferguson (Jessica).
> One of the cool ideas in Dune is that there are no computers so people take a psychedelic drug to pilot spaceships. Maybe this is explained in some boring monologue or text flash but there's no reason it couldn't be shown and it certainly isn't.
The guild navigators I'd expect will be in the next movie, as the spice and its effect on Paul are explored more.
This concept though was well done with the mentat(s) in this one though IMO, they didn't explain it, just showed it. I'd expect they'll do similarly with the navigators when it comes up.
> It doesn't help that Timothy Chalamet and Zendaya are awful.
Zendaya's character is barely in this one. Maybe you know her from elsewhere.
I didn't have any real complaints on Timothy Chalamet's performance myself, but it didn't particularly stand out to me either.
The guild navigators I'd expect will be in the next movie, as the spice and its effect on Paul are explored more.
This concept though was well done with the mentat(s) in this one though IMO, they didn't explain it, just showed it. I'd expect they'll do similarly with the navigators when it comes up.
> It doesn't help that Timothy Chalamet and Zendaya are awful.
Zendaya's character is barely in this one. Maybe you know her from elsewhere.
I didn't have any real complaints on Timothy Chalamet's performance myself, but it didn't particularly stand out to me either.
> The guild navigators I'd expect will be in the next movie, as the spice and its effect on Paul are explored more.
Sure but don't you think it would give more weight to the story if we understood viscerally, visually how spice enables space flight? It would be challenging to show but that kind of challenge should excite a talented director, it's an opportunity to do something experimental.
> Zendaya's character is barely in this one. Maybe you know her from elsewhere.
I've only seen her in trailers and in Dune. I didn't find her credible as a desert-hardened bedouin woman. Whether it's her voice or physical acting, she seemed too much like a teenage girl.
Sure but don't you think it would give more weight to the story if we understood viscerally, visually how spice enables space flight? It would be challenging to show but that kind of challenge should excite a talented director, it's an opportunity to do something experimental.
> Zendaya's character is barely in this one. Maybe you know her from elsewhere.
I've only seen her in trailers and in Dune. I didn't find her credible as a desert-hardened bedouin woman. Whether it's her voice or physical acting, she seemed too much like a teenage girl.
> Sure but don't you think it would give more weight to the story if we understood viscerally, visually how spice enables space flight? It would be challenging to show but that kind of challenge should excite a talented director, it's an opportunity to do something experimental.
At this part in the story? IMO, no. It's enough that they started to show it for mentats and a bit for Paul and etc. The navigator part of spice becomes important for the story once it affects our main character directly and once we need to get into the galactic politics more. It's a big part of what will be the finale for the next movie. I'm fine with it not being spelled out yet.
> I've only seen her in trailers and in Dune.
I'd say give her more time. Her character is just barely even in this movie, she'll be a huge part in the next. What did she even get, like 5 lines?
At this part in the story? IMO, no. It's enough that they started to show it for mentats and a bit for Paul and etc. The navigator part of spice becomes important for the story once it affects our main character directly and once we need to get into the galactic politics more. It's a big part of what will be the finale for the next movie. I'm fine with it not being spelled out yet.
> I've only seen her in trailers and in Dune.
I'd say give her more time. Her character is just barely even in this movie, she'll be a huge part in the next. What did she even get, like 5 lines?
Denis Villeneuve actually has a fairly distinctive style when it comes to having slightly glowing objects floating very slowly through the frame, so yes I do remember the spaceships.
Honestly the first thing I thought when the throat-singing started was why the fuck does anyone watch star wars (Not that the originals are bad, but the universe has no depth). Dune isn't perfect, but it's just so much more intriguing and obviously from a smarter author than it's competitors in the space opera genre.
Honestly the first thing I thought when the throat-singing started was why the fuck does anyone watch star wars (Not that the originals are bad, but the universe has no depth). Dune isn't perfect, but it's just so much more intriguing and obviously from a smarter author than it's competitors in the space opera genre.
One of the things we watch movies for are the characters. And Star Wars has good characters.
Jar-jar Binks?
I'm a massive Dune fan. I've read every one of Frank Herbert's books in the series and a few of his son's and honestly... I kind of agree with you. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved the movie, and it was definitely a faithful adaptation to the book, but it could have been SO MUCH better. The potential for beautiful scenes and captivating stories was there but it never reached the point I thought it could. Maybe it's because I was watching it at home and not at a theater. They could have made the Baron so much more disgusting and villain-like.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think the movie Baron was much more threatening. We only see a little glimpse of what he's like, but what we see is terrifying, and our imagination feels the gaps.
I'm reading the book again recently - I had forgotten that we actually get to see what the Baron is thinking, and when it happens, he looks almost human, like an executive in an evil corporation - like weighing about his potential successors, ranting about the cost of the war, or fretting over how the Sardaukar may see him as incompetent.
I'm reading the book again recently - I had forgotten that we actually get to see what the Baron is thinking, and when it happens, he looks almost human, like an executive in an evil corporation - like weighing about his potential successors, ranting about the cost of the war, or fretting over how the Sardaukar may see him as incompetent.
That's true. Maybe my desire for a "disgusting" Baron comes from watching the David Lynch adaptation one too many times.
[deleted]
There's only so many scripts/stories you can tell. With the ability to access all filmed media at your fingertips, you can watch Star Wars from 1977 any time you want, you couldn't watch old buck rogers serials whenever you wanted in 1977 so when George Lucas modernized them it blew your mind.
Star Wars was borrowing heavily from Seven Samurai not just western films. Thus swords vs blasters works the same way swords vs arrows do in those films etc.
There are basically infinite ways to remix old stories like that. Hell even just the editing significantly improved Star Wars over the original script.
There are basically infinite ways to remix old stories like that. Hell even just the editing significantly improved Star Wars over the original script.
Yeah point is it was heavily derivative, as are most of the films during the last golden age of film (1970s-pick when?), but the technological advances were dramatic enough and audiences didn't have home entertainment systems and access to every film ever so these films were incredibly novel culturally speaking.
I think two things are going on, everyone remembers movies they watched as a kid/teen and thinks they where unusually good. It’s not that there was a golden age of movies, it’s that you personally had seen fewer movies.
That said, the ratio of original movies to sequels/franchises changed. Fast forward 20 years from Star Wars to 1997 and sure yet another Titanic, Jurassic Park 2, and a James Bond film but also, Men in Black, The Fifth Element, Liar Liar, As Good as It Gets etc so still mostly original movies.
But fast forward to 2017 and the top 10 movies included: Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Harry Potter 5, Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, National Treasure 2, The Simpsons Movie, and Transformers. I Am Legend based on a book and 300 based on a comic. So only Ratatouille was actually new.
That said, the ratio of original movies to sequels/franchises changed. Fast forward 20 years from Star Wars to 1997 and sure yet another Titanic, Jurassic Park 2, and a James Bond film but also, Men in Black, The Fifth Element, Liar Liar, As Good as It Gets etc so still mostly original movies.
But fast forward to 2017 and the top 10 movies included: Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Harry Potter 5, Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, National Treasure 2, The Simpsons Movie, and Transformers. I Am Legend based on a book and 300 based on a comic. So only Ratatouille was actually new.
These days, you would need an official fan-restoration / fan-edit to see the Star Wars from 1977 - and that would legally be a bootleg.
> These days, you would need an official fan-restoration / fan-edit to see the Star Wars from 1977
You could try Harmy's despecialized edition.
I'm not going to mention where you can get it, but there is a Wikipedia page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmy's_Despecialized_Edition
You could try Harmy's despecialized edition.
I'm not going to mention where you can get it, but there is a Wikipedia page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmy's_Despecialized_Edition
I love 2049 and it took me 3 tries to finish the original without falling asleep. I still think the original is a mediocre film made cultish by its genre definition cyberpunk worldviews.
Different strokes for different folks.
Different strokes for different folks.
No, see, you have to watch every different cut of the original to really understand it
(kidding, of course... it's really slow and I have to be in the right mood to enjoy it)
(kidding, of course... it's really slow and I have to be in the right mood to enjoy it)
Blade Runner is a total madcap romp compared to Tarkovsky's Solaris, though.
(I love that movie, but the threat of punishing my friends with it is a standard joke...)
(I love that movie, but the threat of punishing my friends with it is a standard joke...)
Make them watch the Mirror instead. It's a much better introduction to Tarkovsky. (Solaris is much more of Crime and Punishment than Sci-Fi anyway)
Holden : The sequel lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to get studio funding, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
Leon : [angry at the suggestion] What do you mean, I'm not helping?
Holden : I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
[Leon has become visibly shaken]
Holden : They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?
Leon : [angry at the suggestion] What do you mean, I'm not helping?
Holden : I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
[Leon has become visibly shaken]
Holden : They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?
[deleted]