Blade Runner 2049 | October 6, 2017 | Villeneuve directs | Full Trailer on Page 40

[Plain Old Tele]

1 minute ago, MrGlass2 said:

For all the criticism Disney gets, this might be the most unnecessary sequel of the year. Philip K. Dick didn't write a sequel to his novel.

 

But the criticism of Disney is that they're basically just cranking out more of the same. This -- for better or worse -- is gonna be entirely its own thing. 

[Hatebox]

41 minutes ago, Jessie said:

 

Not if they want it to be a hit

 

They don't want it to be a big hit. The producers have said they hope it makes less than 150m DOM.

[Ethan Hunt]

50 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

 

They don't want it to be a big hit. The producers have said they hope it makes less than 150m DOM.

 

[Kvikk Lunsj]

1 hour ago, Ethan Hunt said:

 

You would not understand Ethan. You need to legally be able to buy a drink to understand. 

[AniNate]

Atmosphere is Villeneuve's style. There wouldn't be any point hiring him if he wasn't going to bring that to this film.

[The Futurist]

2 hours ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

But the criticism of Disney is that they're basically just cranking out more of the same. This -- for better or worse -- is gonna be entirely its own thing. 

 

You mean like the 56 890 remakes Hollwyood has produced since the 1930's ?

 

How vulgar and basic of them, you are quite right.

 

 

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

You mean like the 56 890 remakes Hollwyood has produced since the 1930's ?

 

How vulgar and basic of them, you are quite right.

 

Like those, but usually studios still made non franchise/remake movie from time to time, Disney was making 40+ movie a year not so long ago.

 

Now it is around 12, and getting close to 100% only franchise movie for the live action fiction.

 

I imagine a lot of other studio would be doing the same if they were owning and successfully monetizing them as Disney is doing thought, not much of a real issue, just a different product for different audience. And it is hard to blame them when pretty much live action wise they tried since the first Pirates of the Caribbean kind of failed, they were a bit pushed in that direction, a bit like letting go of 2D animation for 3D, they resisted for a long time but the audience clearly decided for them.

[That One Girl]

I'm sorry, but I would much rather take an interesting, atmospheric sequel to an 80s film from one of the best directors of our time over a bland, cookie cutter remake of a 90s film from one of the most unoriginal studios of our time.

[AniNate]

2 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

I'm sorry, but I would much rather take an interesting, atmospheric sequel to an 80s film from one of the best directors of our time over a bland, cookie cutter remake of a 90s film from one of the most unoriginal studios of our time.

 

Hey, come on. Many of the best blockbusters of the past few years have come from them.

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, tribefan695 said:

 

Hey, come on. Many of the best blockbusters of the past few years have come from them.

 

Good and original is vastly different, Cinderella was really excellent for example. Very few will doubt Disney high level of execution on is unoriginal output, it is extremely well done.

 

That said, it still made Tomorrowland, Zootopia and some other original stuff, but the number live action wise is really going down.

[That One Girl]

9 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

 

Hey, come on. Many of the best blockbusters of the past few years have come from them.

 

I suppose so, but that doesn't excuse a complete lack of originality in a majority of their films.  Not to mention, originality and quality are two different thing.

[antovolk]

[Eevin]

@That One Guy

Quality >>>>> originality.

 

You can have a movie that's socially progressive, that has an intriguing concept, but none of that matters if the movie is garbage. Something like Jupiter Ascending in theory is what everyone wants to see more of (until it turned out to be terrible), but IMO I'd rather see an unoriginal film that's damn good over a high-concept original that's dull and boring.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Eevin

[Ethan Hunt]

1 minute ago, Eevin said:

Quality >>>>> originality.

 

You can have a movie that's socially progressive, that has an intriguing concept, but none of that matters if the movie is garbage. Something like Jupiter Ascending in theory is what everyone wants to see more of (until it turned out to be terrible), but IMO I'd rather see an unoriginal film that's damn good over a high-concept original that's dull and boring.

I mean yeah

[That One Girl]

3 minutes ago, Eevin said:

@That One Guy

Quality >>>>> originality.

 

You can have a movie that's socially progressive, that has an intriguing concept, but none of that matters if the movie is garbage. Something like Jupiter Ascending in theory is what everyone wants to see more of (until it turned out to be terrible), but IMO I'd rather see an unoriginal film that's damn good over a high-concept original that's dull and boring.

 

I'm sorry but I'd much rather take a million Jupiter Ascending's over one BATB any day of the week.  I'd take any original, high concept blockbusters being made over the same old films that get put out every 2 weeks or so.  It's getting old.  I want change in the industry.

[Ethan Hunt]

6 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

I'm sorry but I'd much rather take a million Jupiter Ascending's over one BATB any day of the week.  I'd take any original, high concept blockbusters being made over the same old films that get put out every 2 weeks or so.  

The problem with this statement is that BatB isn't quality. Its just straight garbage. A well made live action BatB could've been awesome

[That One Girl]

2 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

The problem with this statement is that BatB isn't quality. Its just straight garbage. A well made live action BatB could've been awesome

 

Even if we apply it to something good like Jungle Book, my statement still applies.

[Premium George]

?

[Eevin]

6 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

Even if we apply it to something good like Jungle Book, my statement still applies.

I can't agree with this. Originality is important (especially in blockbusters), but not at the cost of quality filmmaking. 

[Plain Old Tele]

3 minutes ago, Eevin said:

I can't agree with this. Originality is important (especially in blockbusters), but not at the cost of quality filmmaking. 

 

Obviously it demands on how people define "quality filmmaking", as opposed to perhaps "competent filmmaking".

 

Franchise blockbusters are basically the Olive Garden of movies.