Will Blade Runner 2049 live up to the original?

youtube.com/watch?v=BBsjZgu7T2U

Visuals look good but Im worried about the story

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uXXo1YDA9tE
youtube.com/watch?v=Z5OHnY20pK0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

No but a flavor of the month imdb and reddit meme director is directing it so it'll be praised no matter what

Millenials won't understand it.

>Visuals look good but Im worried about the story

So it will be just like the original?

Everything looks good but I see Jared Leto and the alarm bells go off in my mind

It will have a low audience score and a very high critical score. Normies and Sup Forums will call it "boring" and "nothing happens".
If Harrison Ford dies in the first 15 minutes then it will be even better.

>Visuals look good

No they don't. At least not when compared to the original.

He's good whenever he is working with a competent director.
Also his old, but extremely young homo look fits the BR universe quite well.

>Visuals look good

fucking millenials

Explain why do you think the visuals don't look good please.
Also "it looks too clean" is not an argument, maybe the narrative calls for a clean sterile environment unlike the slightly used up neon look from the original.

It. Looks. Too. Clean.

> Scott isn't directing it.
We're already off to a good start.

>51 seconds
holy fucking harrison looks and sounds so uninterested

what can I possibly explain to braindead retard who claims that digital + aftereffects backgrounds look good, in Blade Runner franchise no less.

Polished, digital effects look pretty.
Rough, practical effects look gritty.

Clearly by the on set photos the vast majority of the shots are done in camera on a real set.
And the "digital looks bad" argument is only for ignorant surface level Tarantino fans.

So Gos is a replicant for sure right?

youtube.com/watch?v=uXXo1YDA9tE

Most of what you see is actual practical set shots. And as I said, this isn't trying to be "gritty", it's a sequel not a remake.

>And as I said, this isn't trying to be "gritty", it's a sequel not a remake.

If only it was, maybe then it would look good like the original.

>If only it was, maybe then it would look good like the original.
>bladerunner
>gritty

I'll say one thing, the trailer didn't blow the movies load. You can usually spot a flop when they reveal too much about the plot. Notice the lack of 'splosions, too? I think this has potential if they don't resort to excessive use of Harrison Ford or excessive use of comicbook CGI faggotry.

Has there ever been a sequel released 20-30 years later that has been good?

>visuals look good
Looks like shot to me.
Bit I love the goose and leto so I'm goong to watch it.
Harrison Ford can die already for all that I care. He became a pest

>will Blade Runner 2049 live up to the original?
Which version?

I never saw the original but will soon.
However I hear there are different versions all with different interpretations.
What do?

Mad Max: Fury Road?
No wait, I forgot Sup Forums hates that movie.

TFA

Watch the Final Cut

>being this butthurt and defensive

I think trainspotting 2 was quite ok

>visuals look good
>ops image
hahahaha

Just watch the fucking final cut on blu-ray and never listen to what that old, senile demented shit eating alzheimer brain rotting cock sucker Scott has to say about it these days.

nice dubtrips, shill

No.
Also Blade Runner never needed a sequel.
Its story was told. The end.

holy shit
what an awesome 80s movie

It looks so fucking bad because it has no proper lighting.
The original looked great because it had contrast.
This new one is just bland

>"proper lighting"
lmao
Post a single screenshot from any of the new BR trailers where there's "no contrast"

>Post a single screenshot from any of the new BR trailers where there's "no contrast"
Literally the entire trailer.
It's all bland. No contrast in shadows or highlights.
I realize I'm talking to deaf, dumb and blind people here, but at this point even you should notice.
The lighting in the new one is so phenomenally flat and boring.

youtube.com/watch?v=Z5OHnY20pK0

>we'll fix it in post
Every fucking time

That's what happens when you digitally color correct instead of using gels.
What kind of teenage amateurs did they hire for the movie?
With gels your highlights stay white, as they should, with sloppy digital color even your highlight turns yellow or orange or whatever piss color you're digitally overlaying.

You better be older than 38

fucking gross, why do they keep doing this???

>Have it rain and be nighttime during all the movie
>Its just bladerunner
>Change the visuals
>It looks like shit!

cant win

Are you seriously implying that color correction should never be used?
Do you think you can light a enourmous set like the Blade Runner with fucking gels exlusively?
Do you think color graders can't specifically grade a certain part of the spectrum or even certain parts of the frame?

Braindead retard who saw a gel lighting 101 youtube video a week ago and thinks he knows everything.

He didn't mean contrast as in color palete, you fucknut.
He has a point. The original BR was oustandingly and masterfully lit by Adam Glick, Michael B. Corbett and Richard Hart.
You can't just have an EXTREMELY overrated and overmemed director of photography like Roger Deakins and expect wonders. You need the right lighting technicians.
2049 looks like Avatar liquid shit or a video game cgi amv.

Learn to read you mongoloid waste of oxygen.
I'm saying the new blade runner looks like they did sloppy digital color correction.

You're trying to turn this into a general discussion about color correction.

Learn to read you mouthbreathing nigger.


The movie looks like shit because whoever they hired to do lighting and color correction has no idea how to do his fucking job properly.
The entire scenery looks flat, dull and like cheap late 90s direct to video cgi. Even the big holographic woman with the cheap blue wig from the sex shop.

>Are you seriously implying that color correction should never be used?
Nobody ever said this.
The lighting looks dull and flat because it's poorly done.
The entire thing looks like a fucking fan movie and ford and the goose look like a grumpy father driving his autistic son to a cosplay convention.

>pic
Jesus, this looks awful.

>"That's what happens when you digitally color correct instead of using gels."
Pretty sure that sentence sounds like you don't approve of color correction and that using gels is some superior standard way of doing it, which is completely retarded.

>and ford and the goose look like a grumpy father driving his autistic son to a cosplay convention.
Okay, I keked.

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, but instead want to steer the discussion into a completely different topic. you could be writing for Kotaku.

This is not about color correction in general, but about how fucking wrong they're doing it in the new blade runner. The lighting is all fucked and highlights are tinted. Highlights should never be flat and tinted, unless that's a vers specific effect you're going for. Here it looks just cheap, because it's clear they fucked it up while filming and tried to "fix it in post".

>point the exact sentence where user says some absurd things
>"y-you don't know what you are talking about"

nice argument my dear friend
also don't know what kotaku is

>hey guys, i've got a million dollars idea. how about instead of coming up with original content we just recycle old movies? i know right?
only in america

One of the reasons why blade runner still holds up is because the photography and lighting are so amazing.
The 2047 shots look like rancid feces because they forgot to hire a lighting technician and let the interns fix it in adobe premiere from the looks of it.

>WAAAHHH!!!! W-Why doesn't a movie made in 2017 look like a movie m-made in 1982?? WAHHHH!!!!

But seriously what do you expect? There is a not a single movie made today that truly truly resembles movies made in the past - regardless if they are shot on digital or on film. At best we get movie like this or like TFA that try to capture that style through modern stylistic techniques - but they will never look 1:1 with the original.

The shitflinging will be immense when they put another easteregg linking it with Alien but the easteregg will put it more in Prometheus an Alien.
Bet on it happening.

Look at this mess.

Do you really think Deakins "fucked up while filming"? Do you really think this is not the intended end result?
Deakins is probably fishing for the 14th Oscar meme nomination and you can be sure everything on screen is as intended.

Yes it looks digital, yes it looks clean, but that's what they're going for, not the gritty used up look.
Go post any of the trailer screenshots on /p/ and ask them if the highlights are good or not or if the lighting is "all fucked".

If you had bothered reading the thread you'd know all your "points" are DOA

The dp is not the lighting technican.
If the lighting is borked he cant do squat about it other than complain and lose his job.

Would you want the new BR to look as close as possible to the original or to have it's own look?

The new one just looks flat and dull because of shitty lighting choices.
Cant fix poor lighting in post.

The point being that it tries its hardest to ape the look of the original, while having it look flat and dull at the same time.

>If the lighting is borked he cant do squat about it other than complain and lose his job.

You are factually wrong. Why do you insist on being so ignorant?
Do you know what "DP" even stands for? DIRECTOR of photography. He directs everything and everyone who are included in the photography, including the lighting department. How could someone frame and compose a shot without having a say in the lighting setup?
Completely fucking absurd, just stop posting please.

This is not about what anyone thinks or speculates that lead to the shots looking like they do.
Point being, someone messed up because it LOOKS like shit

A new look would be fine, as long as they didn't go for the straight to dvd look.

>will Blade Runner 2049 live up to the original?
Probably, since it was shit.

But it clearly doesn't try to look like exactly like the original, you think Deakins wouldn't shoot on film on the same camera with the same exact setup if he wanted for it to look exactly the same?
Go watch any recent Deakins interview where he talks about Blade Runner, he doesn't want to make it exactly the same, what's the point of even making it then?

no

You're trying to steer the discussion into your shitty strawmans again.

The shots look like shit. It is not important who messed up on what capacity, but they look garbage.
What you wanna do is have an autistic discussion about conjecture, when the main point is that the movie looks like garbage.

So let's shut your little autistic derailments down immediately

>Atari announces new console
>Advertisements in Blade Runner

This. Villenueve is boring nu-Nolan for plebs who are a little less plebby than Marvel fanbois. His films have nothing to say and haven't said anything in original ways.

He simply makes movies that *appear* more artistic and smarter than the average Hollywood shitfest (just like Nolan), so plebs praise him.

>muh deakins
It still looks like garbage. Cant weasle your way out of that one.

It doesnt matter who to blame, it looks like a student film with poor lighting.

Jesus fuck I'd rather go replay Deus Ex: Infinity War. Looks like absolute shit.

>user keeps making retarded ass objectively wrong claims about why does the lighting not look good to him
>explain how he is factually wrong
>"s-strawman, this thread isn't about that"

Then why did you make this utterly retarded post ?
What kind of "discussion" do you want to have then? Just for everyone to say it's shit or great? An empty echochamber of "yeah it looks like shit lmao"?
You can go to reddit for that my friend.

Thanks guys.
Sorry for the late response.

Why are spewing plebs so quick to defend this tripe?

>love Goose
>Ana de Armas is distractingly pretty
>visuals look good
all it really needs to live up to my expectations is a little bit of heavy dialogue to match "I've seen things that you people wouldn't believe" and I'll like it.

This. The original wasn't even that good to begin with .

ITT: autism

Also I want to fuck that giantess

Same.

Probably not. Makes me angry. Scott wants to make another gladiator but gives again Blade Runner to someone else. Why?

Scott not being the director is the only good decision about this, that demented old out of touch fuck should have retired years ago

Everything so far looks way to clean and sterile

I think it'll be overall good, but I'm not holding my breath for any great lines like that. It seems like movies are getting less quotable these days. There are still movies with really good writing, but try naming any movie quotes from the past 10 years that are iconic, or you think will become iconic.

his weird inauthentic personality and the fact that he doesn't age makes him perfect for playing a replicant.

The crew working on it look extremely good so far. However, I think when it comes out people will suddenly realize that a lot of people only liked the idea of Blade Runner and not the actual movie itself. It is very polarizing.

>"What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?"

most recently:
>Fury Road
an action reboot of a 30 year old franchise directed by a guy in his 70s that was fucking nominated for best picture
>Trainspotting 2
as good as the original IMO

other ones off the top of my head:
>The Color of Money (sequel to The Hustler)
>Tron Legacy
Toy Story 3 was 10 years so I guess not too long after the previous film

I wish the money/time/talent being spent on this had been put onto Ghost in the Shell!!!FACT!!!

The original was a fucking boring shit with a meme le time to die scene and thats it

thank you for speaking the truth. agree 100%

on the other hand, im interested to hear your opinion Green Room, have you watch it

>will Blade Runner 2049 live up to the original?

no. it looks way too clean. looks like a better world then the first and this one is supposedly more fucked.

it lacks the grittyness of the first. doesnt mean it wont be a good movie. but nothing seems great about it. most of the casting besides leto,gosling and ford seem shit. who the fuck wants dave bautista in a blade runner movie? hes shit.

>who the fuck wants dave bautista in a blade runner movie?
I do, he fits fucking perfectly.

The only guy which you should be worried about is the old fart Harrison Ford, hope he dies in the first 15 minutes.

Why do people kept saying that H Ford was a replicant? And what the fuck is Leto doing there?

>Why do people kept saying that H Ford was a replicant?


well if you would have watched the movie....

the first thing i noticed even from the teaser was that it looked too clean and both the lighting AND the color seemed flat and not nearly as varied or thoughtful as it needs to be. there are literally no intriguing combinations of either in any of the shots, no nuance at all, so now the fact that it looks too clean and the texture is fucked stands out even more because the visual style is just aped from the first one but in the most lazy/reductive (muh blue, muh orange, some purple, shadows, and we're good!) way imaginable. all of the base elements are there but they're used terribly, least imaginative way, so theres nothing REALLY to catch your eye. it doesn't even look like they're trying to create the illusion of depth in some of these images.

just sad.. deakins is literally dying before our eyes every time he uses that stupid fucking arri alexa. its pretty clear at this point that denis is a hack too though i wish he had bradford young for this movie instead of arrival, but oh well. im almost sure the story will be flat regurgitated tropes that present a mere illusion of depth (just like all of villeneuves work) while not quite succeeding or striking the right balance and it will end up failing the original to the extent that it will have to be considered non-canon by the originals fans to avoid the wreckage.

12 months ago i was cautiously optimistic too (and i still think the acting except for maybe leto and also johann johannsons score will be fine) but this was always going to either be a hit or a miss, no in between, and there are now too many indicators of it being a miss to ignore.

no
they should have just fucking dropped ford and made a new story from scratch, but the whole "let's play it safe and appeal to the fans of the original" plan never fucking works yet it always happens

Thanks for putting it in words, I noticed the same thing, new trailer looks like nothing special.

Writing is weak, acting is weak, bland colors, music not memorable, etc.

Hope it turns out better than the trailer.