Blade Runner Visuals

Who did it better, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/UgsS3nhRRzQ
youtu.be/jrNijjU-2IE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

GIVE. ME. THE. FUCKING. OSCAR. ALREADY.

Whats the deal with all these orange skin collors?
I hate modern color grading.

Why does modern look so flat?

>the virgin digital color grader vs the chad colored cells

is this a trickie question?

ORANGE

AND

TEAL

Relevant

lot of fog in the newer one

I don't know why I expected No Country for Old Men-level of cinematography when Deakins was annouced to work on the Blade Runner sequel.
This is barely better than In Time, definitely one of his worst.

what the meaning of this?

Are you aware that you are judging the cinematography solely by a few select heavily compressed trailer shots of an almost three hour long film?

>orange and fucking teal
dropped

road to perdition was forgettable, pure mediocrity. is that what he tried to say?

The "teal and orange" is just a complimentary colorway in color grading that's been used from the start of the use of color in any art form, but autists on the Internet like you caught up to that only a year or two ago and now just screech TEEL AND ORAMGE just because they heard of the term somewhere and thinking that that some kind of argument.
Pathetic.

he is the leonardo dicaprio of cinematographers; an extremeley overrated memester hack.

Funny how most people who say that Deakins is a "hack" most probably can't name even 3 other working cinematographers without googling.

you got me, I know only of some guy with a Dutch name who worked with Nolan

It's a trailer for a big budget sci-fi movie. If they had any shots as good-looking as the original, they would've included at least one.

funny how your bitching ironically only further strenghtens him as a memester.
he is the hans zimmer of DOPs. everyone knows his name because he is such a normie memester reddit hack.

Very true

not an argument

>normie memester reddit hack
wow buddy ease up on the meaningless buzzwords, you could try and form a coherent sentence with some actual arguments next time

Hold on a minute, that poster wasn't a joke? I thought some user just threw it together

dumbass, every movie is some variant of blue orange, red green or purple and yellow, there are only so many contrasting colours you can use.

ironic how wasn't an argument in the first place

...

to be quite honest, both posters are pretty fucking atrocious, just terrible compositing from the original and the new one

>flat

That is just an observation user, it isn't pretending to be "an argument", while you think spouting autistic meaningless buzzwords like "REDDIT MEME HACK IMDB SHIT" is worth anything

COLOR THEORY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Its also why you see green and purple

The sets on the right look pretty empty and bland in comparison. Clutter and lack of space were pretty big in the design of BR, but they have a bunch of empty space everywhere in 2049.

At least we know which one has the better waifu

Would you say these two hacks are this generations Nolan and Wally Pfister(also both hacks)?

>Clutter and lack of space were pretty big in the design of BR, but they have a bunch of empty space everywhere in 2049.
Maybe, just maybe, that's the fucking point?

It's possible I suppose, I haven't seen the movie.

>Why does modern look so flat?
because he has no textuers at all. no special lights, its just diffuse light and clean surfaces. its the opposite of cyberpunk. Espeically look in the last two frames in original bladerunner. how the light from the rills creates more complex visuals. supposed to be messy


its babby tier color theory tho. you are not supposed to do it, if you are a real artist

thanks doc

>its a even total recall remake looks better episode
what went wrong

This. They feel "flat" because 99% of modern "cinematography" is just evenly dark objects with fog/haze/smoke/whatever behind them, with maybe some rimlight if we're lucky. It looks "good" and "minimalistic", but uninteresting as fuck.

Just look at. They could've at least lit the actors in more interesting ways, but that would require creativity and effort.

scene in the new one with that old shack in the middle of BFE was supposed to be the opening scene of the first movie. Hes supposed to take out the robot jaw after as proof that he retired it

red green > purple yellow >>> blue orange

fight me

I think the bottom looks better. Not to much contrast, but alot more vivid than the upper one.

Call me a pleb.

man the lighting on the original is art

All colour theory beyond monochromatic/ analogous schemes revolve around complementary colours, great artists keep it subtle but its always there.

This film is too obvious with its colour grading and is afraid of framing complex scenes, haze is a trick used by shit artists who adhere to very basic compositional guides.

The bottom one does look better. It actually has more contrast in terms of brightness/darkness. In the top one everything looks so even.

I don't know where that pic came from. But the upper one is the one that's in the actual movie, unfortunately.

>What went wrong
Your understanding of right and wrong when applied to cinematography.

100% correct
Variants like blue red or blue yellow look good though

Fuck those images selected for 2049. Terrible lighting, minimalism, CGI out the wazoo. Legit looks like garbage compared to the first. God, fuck, it's actually making me angry what passes as acceptable these days.

AAAAAAHH
YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS

I noticed Villenues weird grading decisions in Sicario as well. Ugly monochromatic color schemes.

I really dont mind digital cameras, most of the time, with a little grading and post fx you can make it look almost identical to film.

I just hate the trends in grading now where everything is supossed to look like it was shot on digital in raw format.

forgot my pic, one is screencap and the other is a set photo. Obviously.

there's almost no CGI

It's not from anywhere, I just took the upper pic and changed it up in photoshop if you look closely i made a mistake with the mask and his coat has a slight orange glow

>Breaking bad Mexico scenes Vs Albuquerque scenes
DUDE ITS HOT SO THE SKY IS PISS YELLOW LMAO
are colour graders/directors stupid or what

The set photo looks like breaking bad tv show tier cant get away from stereotypes.

Same reason why the old blade runner looks better with bad film grain/dust and clutter which at the time they probably hated but it looks good in retrospect cos of nostalgia

This is an actual Sicario screencap, stop posting atrocious heavily altered and compressed versions of the film.
Also you clearly never saw a RAW file in your life if you think this looks like a straight up RAW file

>another visual feast that honors the original's artistic vision

Critics and normies have zero standards for visuals.
They thought the new Ghost in the Shell was visually stunning, this new Blade Runner will blow their mind. It'll be hailed as a masterful visual experience and immediately forgotten.

Why is there fog everywhere in the new version?

anyone else worried by this cast?
Harry sand is washed up
gosling looks like a robot
leto was dull in the promotional short

>lit the actors in more interesting ways
The movie still goes with Film-Noir setting. That's how those movies were lit, so Deakins did a good job on that.

Gosling is the perfect expresionless actor for the role.
Leto has that weird slightly too perfect not aging homo face that fit's the Blade Runner world quite good.
Bautista is proving himself good time and time again.

The only one you should be worried about is the old fart Harrison.

fuck off

Why would you post this shit?

>Why does modern look so flat?
cuz it's digital

>forgetting your image

...

doyle, storaro, muller, debie

Believe it or not, but it takes place in an orange space with orange lighting.

>no special lights, its just diffuse light and clean surfaces
Do you even know how a gaffer/dop lights a scene? There is barely diffuse lighting in there. The flat surfaces is OP's fault, the trailers have shown there are very detailed/complex sets/lights. And the 3rd pic from 2049 feels exactly as Blade Runner should feel, it has the Film Noir look to it, and it shows the huge scope of the futuristic city.

this

is that a screen in the story or is it an actual window?

I don't know what it's supposed to be. Those ugly matte paintings changed multiple times during production.

Leto was great in the short Denis made for this
youtu.be/UgsS3nhRRzQ

Wtf he made a real projection of the big pink waifu

I feel the opposite, and I happen to like let a lot.

So if Goose is a replicant, what's going to be the real twist?

how can you judge 2049's cinematography without having seen the movie. this shit should be in service of the story, no? otherwise you're just judging it on the basis of ~*~PRETTINESS~*~ which isn't what cinematography is about.

they could have endeavored to make 2049 look as much like the first movie as possible and just from watching the trailer it should be obvious that they chose to move in the complete opposite direction. blade runner is largely monochromatic and this is strongly saturated, ridley likes to crowd the frame and shoot on super long anamorphic lenses whereas this has very wide framing on wide angle lenses and uses a lot of negative space, ridley and cronenweth would light to bring out texture whereas this seems to be intentionally simplified, etc. etc. but people are talking about it like it tried to recreate the look of the original and failed.

>Pretentious word salad: the tweet

agree, it's almost as if they attempted to create a look more in common with our current reality as opposed to the aesthetics and future projections of the 80s. I love the original but them trying to just recreate it is exactly what's wrong with most sequels. Haven't watched the new one but I'm excited

>dat deakins 'matography!!!!

If anything 2049 is ~*~PRETTIER~*~ than the original, with all the moving holograms, smooth surfaces, and fogs with saturated colors.

The original is just flat out more effective at conveying its mood. Like it has more deliberate camera placements, framing, lighting and such.

lighting work in 2049 is atrocious. so basic and flat, uninspired, with nothing for the eyes to explore, just a fucking A list actor face for your dumb head to recognize and nothing else.

blade runner. things have texture and unique characteristics. not just flat colors and scenery.

Crying about it not sticking to the original visuals are you serious?

He can do what he likes and change how the world looks they are different settings and 30 years after the original in the timeline

>there's almost no CGI


lol you believe that interview where he said theres only 3 uses of cgi? what a fucking retard you are.

>freshman film student opinion

This is like complaining that Fury Road looks nothing like Australia and the visuals of the first Mad Max

Oh baby

>lighting work in 2049 is atrocious.
It's just more slick take off your nostalgia goggles

More slick is the problem.
You can't have a grimy, dirty world with perfect fucking lighting. Makes the whole thing look plastic.

I didn't even like the original all that much, but the cinematography was fucking amazing and this new flick has nothing on it.

Why did they rip off this visual from Ghost in the Shell (2017)?
A: They're hacks

Homage
youtu.be/jrNijjU-2IE

Ukraine?

shot by shot which is bettter

I have not been able to see the original Blade Runner yet, even though I want to. Assuming I will only have the opportunity to watch one version of the original, which of the...what is it, five? Versions is generally considered the "best"?

Watch the Final Cut.

The crying shot in the original is clearly better though.

Do yourself a favor and pretend the stupid fucking unicorn bit doesn't exist, yeah?
When you get to that scene, either skip it or go get a glass of water. It makes the film better if you treat it like it never happened.

I agree with that.

Both are cool. New one seems to have gone for more of a minimalism deal rather than the more grungy style of the original.