Blade Runner sequel

So is it a safe bet this will be a visually rich, but also narratively barren flop?

Other urls found in this thread:

imdb.com/title/tt0087129/combined
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Just like the original

The moment Harrison Ford emerged from the shadows, I knew this would be another paycheck for him.

What a fucking shame. Everything looked great until his shaky hand appeared. Am I the only one who thinks he's a dreadful actor, even though I love his iconic roles?

He's killing off all his most famous characters so he can retire. Indiana Jones is next on the list.

It's a shame the studio thought using him would give a nostalgic angle to the film, which I'm sure it will to some, but I would have preferred this exact same format, however, without Ford. He sticks out like a sore thumb and clearly doesn't give a shit.

>a visually rich
it will be a cheap cgi shitfest

>Villeneuve
>narratively barren

I don't say this often, but it will probably be too deep for you, if anything.

>visually rich, but also narratively barren
Maybe, but it sure as fuck is not going to flop. I also have my doubts about "narratively barren".

It's Roger Deakins, so yea it will be visually rich.

Who knows for the story. I really don't know what they're gonna pull.

He's not a dreadful actor, he's still quite good.
But I agree with the rest of this.

Two things don't add up.
The attitude he showed towards Indiana Jones was that he's actually excited to get on it, and Spielberg says he's not gonna kill him.

If anything, actually, Villeneuve is a sign it will be a film that even the average normie can easily get, but enjoy because it makes them feel smart for getting it. It will also be a clean, solid 5/10 (maybe lower, definitely not higher)

It won't be too deep for a 10 year old.

no

read the director interviews, he's using sets and little cgi because the studio is giving a "indie" treatment to this film

dipshit

All of his films I've seen were far above the 5/10 mark. You can feel however you want about his films. Don't let Sup Forums blind you into becoming a contrarian.

He probs wants to die on-screen and irl to join his waifu carrie

Conrarian, harry potter, star wars, capeshit, le you hate everything popular!!1!...the list goes on

you have really low standards

what in the fuck are you on about.
Your constant cartoon frog posting gives you away, kid.
This is the effect of Sup Forums on the adolescent mind.

...the goose can

>that projection

thats the exact same shit they said before shooting TFA

I'm talking about movies that are of the SAME quality of villeneuve's. And the use of the stupid word "contrarian". I've seen many of his movies, giving them a chance every time, always around 5/10.

After watching Arrival I can tell you this: get ready for shitty deckard voiceover 2.0

>implying you "got" Enemy

If you don't consider Arrival or Sicario at least decent films then your oppinion counts for shit.

alien invasion

And TFA had many practical set pieces which were ofcourse enhanced in post production with CGI.

CGI itself is not bad, it's bad when it's used out of laziness and lack of ideas.

Even other recent movies praised for their practical effects like Fury Road and Interstellar have a shitload of CGI in them too, but it's used as a tool to touch up and improve the already set ideas and set pieces.

Full CGI sequences work only if the director knows exactly what he wants (Avatar, Gravity), but in most cases the director just hires an army of CGI rendering slaves from a visual effects company and tells them only general guidelines of how he wants something to look, leaving the company to be the actual creative part which is an impossible task because it's a whole army of people trying to form a singular piece.

That said, Villeneuve absolutely hates working with green screen and has practically no experience with full on CGI sequences so you can stop worrying.

Arrival, a sci-fi movie with aliens, has only one scene which involves green screen, everything else (like the whole interior of the ship) is a practical set piece with the aliens added in post.

not that guy, but arrival is shit. shitty shit. not even good if it wasnt a total ripoff of contact. its overhyped shit.

arrival = children of men = Ex Machina

sure, static cameras no shakey cam gets a point from me. but characters are shit, writing is shit, plot full of holes, soundtrack pass, nothing quotable or memorable.

i've seen 5000+ films from all over the world boyo. arrival is shit.

go see intacto, now theres a film. tzameti 13 2005. kamikaze 1986. akumulator 1. pontypool.

imdb.com/title/tt0087129/combined

get out there and watch some real films, gain some real "oppinion" little girl.

Confirmed pleb.

blade runner 2049
writer ... Michael Green

michael green?
GREEN LANTERN movie writer.

yeah , its shit.

>arrival is shit. shitty shit.

Thanks for saving me the time to read the rest of your drivel.
If you don't appreciate the motives and the way they are being put to composition in this film, then your not worth talking to for me.

>Orwell
>Just copying the works of Kafka

Because everybody remembers Blade Runner for its writing

>I DON'T FIND THIS PART OF THE NARRATIVE REALISTIC OR PLAUSIBLE SO THE MOVIE IS SHIT

You talk about "real films" and "real opinions", yet you judge a visual medium completely on it's written narrative.

Laughable post my dear amigo friend, simply laughable.

Nice shitpost. And thanks for confirming that you are an idiot.

I'm not even that guy, but what does that have to do with anything?

No he'll continue Indiana Jones


PaRt TiMe

also no syd mead or vangelis in this sequel, so fuck it.

:^)

>realistic

strawman. learn how to argue kiddo.

>not that guy, but arrival is shit. shitty shit. not even good if it wasnt a total ripoff of contact. its overhyped shit.

It actually sounds like you genuinely didn't get the movie, lol.
>i've seen 5000+ films from all over the world boyo. arrival is shit.

It doesn't matter how many films you've watched, the number is not going to mask your lack of maturity and inability to recognize quality.

>visually rich, but also narratively barren flop?
Ridley is directing?

what was in your opinion, the point of the film?

There's not really much on on the Androids they can expand on that wasn't covered in the first film, it'll be some inception tier bullshit

Starring.....

......

Jared Leto

hahahahaha no. is he playing roy batty softer reboot android? HAhahahahaHAHA

There is no "point" but there's a premise and a plot.
Main Premise: In a deterministic universe time can be experienced nonlinearly
Plot: Aliens help humans attain this ability through sub-premise: Sapir-Whorf hypothesis can be true when dealing with alien languages

Of course it's not a perfect movie. For some reason they had to shoehorn in some lame Interstellar-esque time paradox, but overall from that it's a solid 8/10 sci-fi movie.

>Blade Runner sequel
>the most boring of all characters is the only one reprising his role

the protagonist will be black person and the evil bad guy will be a white male.

mark my words.

arrival wasn't, and enemy was a 6/10

Um Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford are the good guys and Jared Leto is the bad guy.

Do you even know what is being discussed or do you just go thread to thread posting MUH LIBERAL CONSPIRACY

I'm working on this movie currently (VFX). Dont like the visual tone, seems to have lot of un-necessary CGI. Ryan Gosling is easy to track though because his face acting is shit.

I had little interest in seeing this movie, and have even less after hearing Gosling basically say "this isn't your daddy's Blade Runner" in the teaser trailer.

My dad works at Nintendo too

That's essentially what Blade Runner was, so yeah that sounds about right.

I wouldn't really have it any other way.

My nephew Hiroyuki said he will ban you if you continue to post lies on the internet