Blade Runner 2048

[Ryan Williams]

The visual aesthetics in 2049 follows the story, which is how it's supposed to be. There's so many people wanting a carbon copy of the original, which wouldn't work at all. I really like how they built upon the original look and feel and made it fresh. It's themes and philosophies are extended and the slow pace support the atmosphere. I'm glad they kept nostalgia to a minimum. Otherwise it would've been like the Ghost in the Shell movie which forcefully copied scenes from the anime into another story entirely without true scene specific context.

A carbon copy of the original would not have worked today. It would've come off as a shallow nostalgic trip in niche form. This one actually tells a story about K that stands on it's own and hold up as a fantastic sequel. There's not a lot of franchises that managed to do this.

Ya, 100% with you on this one mate. I didn't want a copy of the original and I got much more than I expected. I was not let down by 2049.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

You wanted a copy of the original. You wanted to hear and see the same things. This is not what making a sequel is about, that's just copying a style and paste it on top of another story. This follow-up story demanded something else and I do not think that the original aesthetics would have worked if just copied over. You are inviting the kind of catch-22 scenario for filmmakers in which if they did copy and paste the aesthetics they would have gotten criticism that they just copied everything and made a lesser version of the original while as it is now, they built on top of it and had to invent it's own aesthetics in some places, they get criticism that it doesn't feel like the original.

It's an impossible task you are demanding from them. But they chose to built on top of the previous movie and expanded ideas while setting their own atmosphere. It's exactly the right choice because the other would just have been mindless fan-service and nothing more.

If you demand more of the same, you will get the the same over and over and nothing more. If you want to expand, you need to accept variation and differences.

You really think it's anything else than film product, made by film industry, ment just for sale? Sequel or not.
Think that's art? :ihih:

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

You wanted a copy of the original. You wanted to hear and see the same things.

I didn't "want" anything, just saying it felt like a completely different movie for me, because the light aesthetic and music which defined the original are gone. Particular consistency and copy are not the same. I still appreciate the chosen direction and it is still a great movie and a visual feast.

As I already wrote - I watched the original just before the sequel so there was a noticeable departure in aesthetic, plus all landing on a bias, and I missed the punchy film noire feel and Vangelis score. I'll probably watch it again without the conditioning effect from the original.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

You really think it's anything else than film product, made by film industry, ment just for sale? Sequel or not.
Think that's art? :ihih:

You mean to say that Denis Villeneuve and the rest aren't artists of the craft? Do you define art by not being a product people pay for? Then in that case nothing is art except something made for free. It's a nonsense argument really. 2049 is art, definitely. Not just in it's context and ideas but certainly in it's craft. I'm a bit tired of the argument that blockbuster sized movies can't be art. It's like a defence thing people say in order to heighten smaller budget films artistic status to make sure they can compete in someway. 2049 is a prime example of blockbuster sized quality art. They are surely rare, but once in a while. However, if defining "what's art", anything that's an expression of something in someway is considered art. Personal definitions of art is irrelevant.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Personal definitions of art is irrelevant.

Personal definitions of art is irrelevant.

You mean to say that Denis Villeneuve and the rest aren't artists of the craft?

Artist of the craft?! There you have it.
Following that logic a baker could be called an artist of the dough...and my wife is an artist of my dick. :devil:

Denis is an director, and that's a profession. Craftsman...

Do you define art by not being a product people pay for?

Art ain't product. A product you pay for is an article...

Then in that case nothing is art except something made for free.

Hm, what's wrong with free? Ever did a movie without a budget?

It's a nonsense argument really.

See above!

2049 is art, definitely.

No, it's just another movie.

Not just in it's context and ideas but certainly in it's craft.

:rofl:

I'm a bit tired of the argument that blockbuster sized movies can't be art.

Cuz they can't...

It's like a defence thing people say in order to heighten smaller budget films artistic status to make sure they can compete in someway.

Mostly, yes, but don't mix up the emboldened with artistic, those are just cheep - just another kind of crap.

2049 is a prime example of blockbuster sized quality art.

Oxymoron.

They are surely rare, but once in a while.

What's rare about blockbusters these days?

However, if defining "what's art", anything that's an expression of something in someway is considered art.

Right, and cat's meowing is a catart...:rofl:

Personal definitions of art is irrelevant.

You got that right!

 

[William Long]

Šabović, I don't really see your point or how what you are saying is constructive.

 

[Aaron Lochert]

Šabović, I don't really see your point or how what you are saying is constructive.

All of that screen space to express nothing more than disagreement. I'm not sure inserting 12 separate quotes and disagreeing with each one individually was necessary.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Šabović, I don't really see your point or how what you are saying is constructive.

I know.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Michelangelo did work for hire. So did Davinci, so did every artist ever. Just because it's a work for hire doesn't make it not art. Art within constraints is the best kind. See Tarkovsky's work done under the thumb of Soviet censorship. Being within a budget and having to make money is just a different set of constraints to work inside of.

Nick

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Michelangelo did work for hire. So did Davinci, so did every artist ever.

Yes, that's called oportunism.

Just because it's a work for hire doesn't make it not art.

Mercs.

Art within constraints is the best kind.

So is the chained liberty, but not really.

See Tarkovsky's work done under the thumb of Soviet censorship. Being within a budget and having to make money is just a different set of constraints to work inside of.

Nick

Nonetheless, you can't by art...or sell.

 

[Nick Gardner]

I think every working artist in the world, including my self would disagree with you, but we can agree to disagree.

Nick

 

[Sabovic Adis]

I think every working artist in the world, including my self would disagree with you, but we can agree to disagree.

Nick

Of course we can. One quick question, though:

Of two artists, which one is fake? :smile5:

 

[Nick Gardner]

The one that's full of shit ;-)

 

[Sabovic Adis]

The one that's full of shit ;-)

:rofl:



:thumbsup:

 

[Matt Hall]

Saw this movie this evening and I gotta say it was visually captivating. Stunning wide open spaces giving scale to the vastness of the setting. Really enjoyed it. Can't compare it to the original because (I'm ashamed to admit) I never saw that version.

 

[William Long]

Saw this movie this evening and I gotta say it was visually captivating. Stunning wide open spaces giving scale to the vastness of the setting. Really enjoyed it. Can't compare it to the original because (I'm ashamed to admit) I never saw that version.

Wow! You have something to look forward to! )

 

[Darius Lyles]

Finally got a chance to see it today and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Its a lot different from the first one but is definitely beautifully shot and well crafted...seeing it in IMAX was a real treat.

 

[Uno Castillo]

it is really sad what this movie does to the whole Blade runner Universe, toooo long, too boring, to much common places. Leto it so patetic as always.

in the other hand, cinematograaphy and general production it is amazing.

 

[Ben Scott]

Loved it.

Great look, great score. Grown up themes and a beautiful pacing that isn't rushed. And Ryan Gosling got to stare into the distance all moody like he's cornered the market in.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Yes, that's called oportunism.



Mercs.



So is the chained liberty, but not really.


Nonetheless, you can't by art...or sell.

In my opinion, trying to define art is a huge trap, always has been. One should not need a dictionary to recognize art or artistic merit.