BLADE RUNNER

youtube.com/watch?v=jrNijjU-2IE

>A film that was shot 35 years ago looks better in every single aspect.

What did they mean by this ?

Other urls found in this thread:

icgmagazine.com/web/humanity-2-0/
youtube.com/watch?v=UgsS3nhRRzQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Harrison Ford was the worst thing about 2049.

Worse than le resistance or Leto ?
Well you may actually be right.

Bump for plebs who haven't seen the original.

>Worse than le resistance or Leto ?
Le resistance was just a painful few seconds and Leto was more wasted potential than bad; if they had spent the time they wasted on Deckard giving Wallace more characterization than "ominous ham-fisted monologues in a poorly-lit apple store" then the film would have been that much better.

>"IT DOESN'T LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THE ORIGINAL SO IT'S SHIT"

Yes the visuals are sterile, empty and monochromatic in BR2049, that's the entire point, the new one is showing the bleak empty sterile future after the blackout where nature is practically non existant that is in contrast with the dense, dirty, alive and cluttered setting of the original. The original was mostly filmed at night, this was mostly filmed in a day.
You're acting like every movie should be filled with a vast highly colorful spectrum of colors and with as much things shoved in the frame possible, no matter what the narrative of the film is about.
It would make no sense for this film to look extremely colorful and dense, it would make no sense to fill the streets with thousands of extras, it would make no sense to make it seem "alive" when everything in it is basically dead.
Bunch of ignorant surface-level brainlet casuals.

No he wasn't, not even close to the dogshit performance of leto.

>What did they mean by this?

Films stopped being art years ago and fully embraced it's purpose as a means of taking your cash.

Reminder that a shot like this is nearly impossible to pull of with a film camera.

>DUDE HAN SOLO IS A SALTY OLD GUY LMAO

No, he was the worst part of the movie. The performance was meh but just the fact that it became Starsky and Hutch after K shows up in Vegas made the movie shit. There was absolutely no reason to not have a clean break.

>an almost 3 hour long R rated visually focused slow burning neo-noir sci fi film with zero quips that deals with the human condition
>"its' purpose as a means of taking your cash"
sure thing buddy

>an almost 3 hour long R rated visually focused slow burning neo-noir sci fi film with zero quips that deals with the human condition
STOP POSTING THIS

truth hurts I know

Exactly the evidence is in the OP. So much care was taken when constructing the first Blade Runner and stands individually, instantly recognisable. The new Blade Runner? no visual identity. No care in the details. Would get lost if you compared it to flicks like The Avengers.

Every single thing you mentioned is what made the original what it is though.

If you are going to discard every one of those, and go the easy route and have foggy scenes with bleak colors fill in nearly every shot, then you should just accept the fact that the visionaries who made the original did a better job.

Also I never said "this is a shit film because it isn't as visually impressive as the oirignal."

I'm just saying that it is an ant compared to the original when it comes to visual imagery.

You must be an actual mentally challenged turboautist. The entire point of the new one is that the ecosystem is dead and that a technological blackout happened, it would make no sense for the visuals to be highly vibrant and colorful full of life.

Also in a single set of BR 2049 went more effort and detail than the entirety of any other film released in 2017. The majority of the BR2049 visuals have been done entirely in camera and not with miniatures but with actual built real life sets. The lighting is achieved with hundreds of lights (notice that each and every light has a separate dimmer), not color grading trickery, everything in camera. And it's perfectly in line with the narrative of the film, it would make no sense for this shot to be filled with millions of extras and things happening when it's basically a dead place.

Saying that it is "foggy and bleak" is not an argument, it's just an overly general statement on par with saying "it's bad because it's bad". Form an actual argument of why the visual narrative in the new one is not good.

>Also in a single set of BR 2049 went more effort and detail than the entirety of any other film released in 2017

What the fuck does that even mean ?

Would you consider a 2/10 woman universally beautiful just because she is surrounded by 1/10's ?
GTFO pleb.

Those are terms used to describe the visual integrity of a picture.
Even if it is a result of Hackeneuve's intentional design, it just shows how limited he is as a director in visual capacity.

Is the trailer music on the soundtrack? I don't remember hearing it in the actual film but its fucking great.

>What the fuck does that even mean ?
That in these day and age of hiring CGI rendering slave armies, Villeneuve spent his entire budget on making actual sets and Deakins on lighting setups which created the world of the new Blade Runner.

>Would you consider a 2/10 woman universally beautiful just because she is surrounded by 1/10's?
Do you think every film has to look as "beautiful" as possible? Do you think cinematography is just a contest of who is going to make the prettiest picture they can make? Have you made a single thought that the visuals sometimes can be brutalistic, bleak, opressing, isolating and not just filled with as much things as possible in the frame everytime?

>Those are terms used to describe the visual integrity of a picture.
I know that you tried to describe the visuals with those terms, I am just pointing out how laughably overly general and meaningless they are.

Is the original worth watching?

Yeah they should've used 30 year old camera and lighting equipment to make a carbon copy of the film, you're right OP

OP's image makes both of them look like shit.

its cause the new one is 90% cgi

It isn't tho.

It literally isn't. Look at on set the pic in for example

so, is this a soft rebot then?

It isn't at all, the movie is entirely standalone and only expands on the original in every aspect. Best possible sequel anyone could ever imagine

The only reason people liked and remember the original were the miniatures and le tears in the rain scene.

>Do you think every film has to look as "beautiful" as possible?

Way to miss the point. I never said that.
You mentioned how 2049 spent so much effort on sets compared to movies of 2017.
What I'm saying in return is, that why did shitty 2017 films become a baseline for good cinema ?
You can't come to the conclusion that it is a good film by compared it to the worst of the worst.

>I know that you tried to describe the visuals with those terms, I am just pointing out how laughably overly general and meaningless they are.
Within context, BRvs2049, they are pretty specific and meaningful though. Never tried to make a generalization.

idiot

What do you expect? Cinema as a medium is getting worse over time. It peaked in the 80s and has been getting worse ever since

Don't be so ignorant, bad films were always made, you just think of all the great ones like they happened in a single year.
People constantly pretend "waaah muh 80s, muh 90s muh classic Hollywood", the year 2007 alone has better films than half of the 90s
>No Country for Old Men (2007)
>There Will Be Blood (2007)
>The Assassination of Jesse James (2007)
>Zodiac (2007)
>Eastern Promises (2007)
>Before The Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)

Stop being an ignorant nostalgiafag.

>A film that was shot 35 years ago looks better in every single aspect.

No, it doesn't. Now go away and kys.

I didn't realize all those movies came out in 2007, god damn. It really was a good year

I think y'all just hate Jared Leto, because his performance was fine. Ford was good, too, because he tried for the first time in I don't know how many years.

Why? I mean, I'm no expert on film vs digital, so just asking.

Honestly that video is 50/50.

The movie looked great, my only gripes with 2049 off the top of my head:
>the city didn't feel claustrophobic enough
People weren't tightly compacted and crowded. Bautistas short film made the streets feel more thriving with scummy life. But maybe that's to do with humanity conveying that dying out, so maybe it was on purpose.
>Leto's place
Shit was way too minimal, sleek, clean and spacious in that modern sci-fi way instead of keeping with that busy Blade Runner mise-en-scene
>some of the technology was too advanced
Blade Runner is in a future where only really analog technology was progressed so everything felt believable, but in 2049 there's floating magic pebbles and a potable waifu hologram that needed no projector. The projectorless waifu annoyed me because you had a scene showing how the apartment has a projector to follow her movements but then shes just uploaded onto a fucking stick and all that plausibility goes right out the window.

It is the last good year.

Went downhill after 2007.

Because a digital camera can work in extremely low light conditions and still pick up all the details needed, while a film camera needs far more lights in the scene for such a scene to work, otherwise it would just be a grainy completely dark frame.

Thanks, mate.

>whole movie is dark serious identity scifi detective movie with loud dark music, brutal violence and oozing atmosphere
>Ford shows up
>suddenly it's a comedy for ten minutes

>What did they mean by this ?
that 49 is a h*lla epic flick that everyone should watch because HEY REMEMBER BLADE RUNNER, I MEMBER

The best shots in 2049 don't appear in the trailer. Also, that version of the original was the re-edited and color-corrected Final Cut, not the version released in 1982

2007 also had stuff like
>3:10 to Yuma
>Michael Clayton
>Into the Wild
>Hot Fuzz
>Gone Baby Gone

If digital is so great then why did they need to add cgi mist and lights?

>no visual identity
If you were showed a shot from 2049 and from other sci-fi you could easily tell which is which
>Would get lost if you compared it to flicks like The Avengers
Unless you have cataracts

It's not CGI, all of that is entirely practical. As I already said, see the on set pic here Stop making bullshit ass claims.

Don't forget the Orphanage

Get your eyes checked. There is 0% chance that the fog and lighting in the background weren't added digitally. The yellow light in particular looks atrocious. If I had to guess I'd say that shot is 25% green screen.

Of course

It is insane to me that multiple people in this thread genuinely, genuinely believe that the cinematography of 2049 is half-assed, no thought was put into it, generic etc. The mental gymnastics are mindboggling.

You're a fucking moron. That shot is not the post production shot, it's an actual shot from a different camera ON SET, the look is entirely made there. Zero green screen whatsoever.
>“That orange environment was done in three different ways,” Deakins remarks. “The opening part was on stage and, for this, I had Tiffen make some specific red filters for in front of the lens. While most of my lighting was tungsten-based Spacelights, there were some 20 Maxi-Brutes gelled green to give a feeling of yellow light against the predominantly red filtration."

>“The second section was an interior shot on location in Budapest,” he continues. “For this we had HMI sources from outside the windows, which were in turn diffused and gelled with the same color gels that we had used for lens filtration previously. Then, for the third part of the sequence, we had a very large set that used a couple hundred open-faced 2Ks and sixty 10Ks, with all those lamps bounced and gelled to maintain our color. All of the color scheme was controlled in camera and this gives it a reality I doubt it would have had if left to post.”
icgmagazine.com/web/humanity-2-0/

It's just a bunch of autistic anons who didn't even see the film making loose claims based solely by watching the 2 minute trailer of an almost 3 hour long movie, nothing new here.

>tfw circumstances, own thoughts and fake gf make you think you're special
>tfw not actually special

since this seems to be an og bladerunner > 2049 thread, what did you think abou the only explanation about wallaces claim to power after tyrell was one line of text at the start?

>Every single thing you mentioned is what made the original what it is though.
do you not acknowledge the setting is different.

The old one was filmed in one backlot which is why it all looks cluttered and samey. 2049 has a lot more variation in it's settings

>The only reason people liked and remember the original were the miniatures
The LAPD in 2049 is also a minature look at the behind the scenes they built everything

Don't ever go to Vegas.

I think it worked just fine. Having a monopoly on the food supply of the entire fucking world makes you a pretty powerful man both economically and socially; if Wallace wanted to bring back replicants then who the hell was going to say no?

>after Tyrell died, nexus 7 were put into production which had no expiration date whatsoever and everyone is fine with it WHAT COULD GO WRONG

youtube.com/watch?v=UgsS3nhRRzQ

Bladerunner original had the utter concentration of noir and great villain but terrible protagonists

Bladerunner 2049 focuses more on existential dread and has a better protagonist

If Ford wasn't in this movie I wouldn't even call it a sequel and have it more as another story in the universe

You could also convince yourself that 2049 is the actual GitS movie.

Ford did way better than I thought he would returning to this role. It didn’t feel like he didn’t want to be there or forced desu. Also keeping him well over an hour into the runtime was such a good call.

I wouldn't say that. GitS goes way more scifi than Blade Runner while they both examine the concept of "what defines humanity". GitS has a lot more scifi stuff while Bladerunner features mostly stuff that is still grounded

>Also in a single set of BR 2049 went more effort and detail than the entirety of any other film released in 2017

Lmao to be honest

DUNGOOFED backtraced edition

Oh fuck I forgot about that.
Yeah both Dunkirk and BR2049 are pretty much anomalies that happened by miracle in the sea of streamlined degenerate studio calculated Hollywood shit with no end.

Dunkirk has a lot of props and sets n shit but it doesn't change the fact that it's a garbage movie made by a hack filmmaker

Hey kid, just an absolutely friendly reminder that the adults here don't think it's cool when you're contrarian, it's just annoying.

Hope this advice will help you make an informed post next time.

You have to go back.

>oh no, reddit like Nolan films so that means he's reddit!

You better not search Blade Runner 2049 on there then because they think it's the best sci fi film ever made and Villeneuve is the second coming of christ.

I like how
>deckard is wet with fear facing nexus 6 while K is just sad all the time
>Bryant is ugly racist pig clearly hated by Dec, while Madam is elegant women nice to K
>Rachel moves like her outfit was super fancy but uncomfortable as hell
>Tyrell has super comfy bedroom and plays chess while Wallace lives in empty space and keeps talking bulls hit


It's dem subtle differences man. I love both of them. I wish they'd play the original in cinemas due to 2049 coming. I never had a chance to experience it on large screen in full glory.

Only a meme flick would rely on youtube shorts to make sense of the whole thing.

KEK'D

Nolan doesn't have the empathy, emotion or horror of violence to make an effective war movie. Dunkirk is "Watch nameless soldiers die bloodlessly to a nameless enemy while you have no characters or story to care about" the movie. It doesn't hold a candle to much better war movies like Stalingrad, Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan or Cross of Iron

Wallace was just an entrepreneur who was a tyrellaboo and decided to make newer nexus models saving the ecosystem with his synthetic farming. The shorts only add more depth but aren't necessary. Not my fault you didn't understand it.

>reddit likes it

Then it's sealed. 2049 will be labelled and hated in here. It was nice having actual discussion with you guys.

>If Ford wasn't in this movie I wouldn't even call it a sequel and have it more as another story in the universe

Because it is too weak of a story/flick to stand on its own feet without relying on the brand awareness of a cult classic.

Thanks for pointing it out.

I don't think we saw the same movie.

>nexus 6 managed to escape, get to earth, sneak to Tyrells pyramid and murder him
>let's make more replicants with extended lifespan and ALLOW THEM ON EARTH


Still, I consider 2049 a great thing.

Ford didn't feel like an important character or a cameo. He was more like the last dot to connect within K's story.

Oh I like it too, I just think it has a few issues like the nexus 7 being an asspull created just to have old deckard in the movie and keep the replicant mistery, and him being the dad of replicant jesus just because he was in the previous movie, but at least it was a genuine movie made by human beings which is why it has a few quirks here and there

I was replying to this :
>the only explanation about wallaces claim to power after tyrell was one line of text at the start?

and someone(you) linked that youtube short.

>Let's just convey the backdrop of the film by adding a verbal narrative in the beginning of the film because we need to tie this to the Original.

Not saying it didn't work, but it was a cop out.

This

real humans don't see every detail in the dark. that's the point of darkness

Except the detective/assassin story and especially the narrative of "You aren't the hero of your story but you can still be a good person" is a good enough story stand on its own and would function as a movie beyond the brand.
Dunkirk is a sterile sequence of deaths that don't mean a thing to the audience and a bunch of sets. Nolan's outright said he didn't want to focus on characters and instead the setpieces and death. But unlike Peckinpah, Malick, Spielberg, Mel and others while he is fascinated with death and dread he shies away from blood, guts and emotional revulsion and horror. So the violence, which is the absolute core of that movie, has little to no impact aside from "Wow a lot of people sure do die in this movie". And reducing the Germans to a completely faceless and even nameless evil monster is a cherry on top of that flavorless cake.

no, rachel was the only nexus 7, the rest were nexus 8's like Sapper and Freysa and K and Luv are nexus 9's

Did you not read the intro text? All of the old replicants in the resistance including sapper are nexus 7, sapper has been alive at least since 2022 according to the shorts

Digital can capture what humans see in low light. Film can't.

Wew lad

>Except the detective/assassin story and especially the narrative of "You aren't the hero of your story but you can still be a good person" is a good enough story stand on its own and would function as a movie beyond the brand.

Nah. Without any ties to the original film plot, they'd have to try extra hard to establish a substantial story line.

Never mind the extra effort they'd have to put into PR and marketing.

Still would flop harder than it is doing now.

>at least it was a genuine movie made by human beings which is why it has a few quirks here and there

So much this. There are minor incosisncies and issues, and the longer whole board digs for them, the more we'll find. While I think original was better, I consider new one a worthy contination, and best movie I've seen at cinema in years.

Isseus about particular generations of replicants are irrelevant to the beauty and message of the film.

No they were nexus 8s, rachel was the only nexus7 prototype

The story is already better than the original's, and the two movies are different enough to be almost entirely separate experiences. Villenueve's track record til now has been entirely original stories set in various places and even genres. He could easily make that story and narrative in a different setting. But he's a huge autist who loves Blade Runner and when the studio said "Hey you wanna do it?" it was a dream opportunity for him and that's one of the big reasons it isn't a soulless cashgrab sequel like the new Pacific Rim.
>box office meaning anything after the first one was a financial failure as well

>The story is already better than the original's
I liked the movie, but this is just nonsense.

I prefer the old one overall, but story was never it's strongest side.it might really be better in 2049

What he said.

How is the story better than the original ? There is absolutely no mystery, everything so straight forward.
All plot progress is achieved by too convenient turn of events and deus ex machinas.

>Leon manages to flee Tyrell fucking hq after killig blade runner that was looking for him
>Deckard is retired policeman
>oh he now works for the police because vague threats
>he just stumbles across Zhora
>Rachel is there to save him from Leon


I love it, but story isn't what that love is about.

There's no mystery to the original either. Unless you count the narrative of "Well maybe these androids are human after all" as a mystery. The storyline of the new bladerunner is almost the reverse of the first, where Deckard was just some boring lifeless asshole with no arc and now K is a boring lifeless asshole whose entire world and view of himself is challenged to the point that he transforms as a character. Likewise the "villains" in the first one, Roy and company, were all interesting characters with actual traits and motivations, while in the new Bladerunner, although Leto's character has defined motivation, he's a boring asshole and Luv is the Terminatrix. There's an actual plot to 2049 that has details emerge we weren't privy to. Everything in BR1 was laid out from the start.