Comment by keiferski
25 days ago
One of the reasons modern sci-fi films (e.g., Blade Runner 2049) seem so flat to me is because of the costumes. They're always too minimal and too forgettable. There's really nothing special about the fashion in that movie.
Compare that to the hyper-maximalist 80s movie outfits. The original Blade Runner has more creativity in one outfit than pretty much the entirety of the sequel.
I wonder why that is. My guess is that it's just a symptom of the same thing that causes everyone to stop buying colorful cars, and instead default to a grayscale one: fear that being too outlandish or creative will turn off potential customers/viewers.
There was a huge Lucasfilm book on the costume design of The Phantom Menace, it looked amazing, I would have bought it at Forbidden Planet but I was between jobs at the time.
It went into to much detail, the film has its detractors, but the book itself was fascinating. Although I still buy books I don't think I spend enough time reading them.
'Dressing a Galaxy': https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Dressing_a_Galaxy:_The_Cost...
Old film makers thought they were compensating for a lack of the kind of CGI and world building options we have today, compensating with rain, mist, camera angles to hide the lack of scale, and with costumes, lots of background actors, detailed film sets, to make the world seem grander. Turns out they had actually hit a sweet spot.
> I wonder why that is. My guess is that it's just a symptom of the same thing that causes everyone to stop buying colorful cars, and instead default to a grayscale one: fear that being too outlandish or creative will turn off potential customers/viewers.
One aspect of it is that the sci-fi future is not really a future in general, it's a future how it was imagined at the time. In the 80s we had maximalist fashion - bright colors, shoulder pads, big hair. So the future from that time looked even more so like that.
If we look at the future as imagined in the 40s and 50s we might laugh at the silly looking robots. We'd never put robots like in a current sci-fi movie, unless as a joke. But, at the time they were not made for laughs, people thought that's what robots would really look like.
An even deeper part of this is that the future from 80s from movies that became popular also adds to how we might see the future now. Aethetics from popular movies are immortalized. Like say, you're lamenting why doesn't current sci-fi look like Blade Runner, but imagine if Blade Runner had terrible characters and bad acting. You wouldn't want that aesthetic in sci movies today. It would be associated with crap.
I would agree with you un general, but Blade Runner 2049 is not a good example, il remember clearly the coat of Ryan gosling, the dresses, etc. This film is great for that, the lights, the sets design.
https://www.chapter1-take1.com/2017/10/blade-runner-2049-cos...
Comparing the two, you can really see how minimalist the modern stuff is. It has less texture, fewer details (buttons, collars), no patterns (at least from the blog post screenshots).
I think you could argue that some of this is just modern sensibilities and aesthetics, but I think a lot of it is probably just the modern movie industry. Like decisions with modern lighting and how flat things looks in modern movies (to make production more efficient and making adding CGI easier), they probably go with minimalist costumes since they're easier to capture on film, cheaper, and easier to make.
I would just think that taste has changed. I was actually thinking to myself that I prefer 2049's style as I was reading through this. But I was also born in the late 90's, so I assume it could be a generational difference.
It's not even so much that I like the taste / style of the fashion in the original Blade Runner, more that it just feels more real and interesting. The recent film feels like any other generic sci-fi movie.
> The recent film feels like any other generic sci-fi movie.
While that's true to some extent, as I noted in my sibling comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46775053), it's partly because 2049 lives in a world where, for over 30 years, most other sci-fi visions of urban environments were strongly influenced by OG Blade Runner. It's hard to appreciate how much the 1982 original visually impacted everything that came after.
Denis Villeneuve faced an almost impossible challenge in balancing faithfulness to the original production design while evolving the original's vision of 2019 forward 30 years to its own related but visually distinct descendant. Almost every visual choice risked either being "nearly a copy of the original" or "hardly related to the original".
I'm a huge fan of the original - so much so, in 1992 I bought a plane ticket to fly across the country for one evening just to see the limited run of the original "lost workprint" in Westwood. In 2017, I was so concerned any attempt at a sequel to such a seminal classic was doomed to fail that I didn't even go see 2049 until I heard reviews from fans I trust. I mean, for decades "Blade Runner Sequel" was a project no competent director would ever consider touching. I assumed anyone who would take the job was either incredibly arrogant, greedy or stupid. But Denis didn't need Blade Runner, being a huge fan, he wanted it.
I was pleasantly surprised that, given the near-impossible task, 2049 was a reasonable success on its own terms. Despite the limited budget, Denis managed to not only avoid tarnishing a classic, he did it credit by not camping on its coattails. And Roger Deacon's cinematography definitely deserved the Oscar he won. My only regret on 2049 is that Denis didn't get the budget he wanted. Another $5M and three weeks shooting would have gone a long way. But, like the original 2049 is remarkable, in part, because it's as good as it is despite being starved of adequate resources.
2 replies →
Clothes in '80s were overall louder than the minimalist aesthetics of today. It all fits in with gen z's apprehension at being perceived, related to "cancel culture" and cameras everywhere.