Something feels off about this movie

I can't quite put my finger on it though

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/tM--R94Quc4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

2deep?

Something feels off about this thread
I can't quite put my finger on it though

it's too sterlie

like one of those expert forgery people. They can copy the a painting like for like but it's still just a empty shallow copy of the orginal

Something feels off about this post
I can't quite put my finger on it though

I don't know but I really want to be Luv's toilet
she could shit directly into my mouth and I wouldn't say a single word, except "thank you, goddess."

Could it be OP's craving for dicks in his mouth?

tailor made for reddit

CELLS

shut the fuck up

That is it! OP is a fag!

bad cinematography
i generally like deakins but this movie looked like a cheap video game

yep.

It's a desperate attempt towards a kojima aesthetic

shame a decent get was wasted on this reddit post

It's the blatant, in-your-face dishonesty

...

this movie is beautiful. if you hate Trump you probably hate this movie

Half that shot is CGI. Half the film's imagery is directly taken from the original, and so does nothing new besides slapping on sterile digital cinematography.

The monochromatic "sterile" visuals are the entire point of BR2049, to show the bleak empty future after the blackout where nature is practically non existent 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.
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 shoot it on grainy film, it would make no sense to make it seem "alive" and developed when everything in it is basically dead.

It's sad that you think that every film should be as vibrant and "pretty" as possible no matter what the narrative is about.

I voted for Trump and i think this movie is shallow reddit trash

Trying to hard with the Reddit, in Reddit mind, this movie is sexist filth, so shut the fuck up user.

all style no substance

This

>caring about narrative
get out

I hate drumpf and i love this movie

its bad thats what feels off

Literally the entire shot is practical in camera, the only CGI is the replaced statues
youtu.be/tM--R94Quc4

>caring about narrative
>get out
What? Really what are you saying here, that the narrative of a film isn't important?
I refuse to believe someone is that much retarded

bump

Amazing argument and insight, riveting stuff

its boring

fucking nailed it

>it sucks on purpose

That's an insane amount of CGI. I mean, why couldn't they do pic related using practical effects? All rendered in 4k and will never scale to 8k/other in the future without being an upscale. 2049 is literally just another Fincher-tier assembly line product, overused CGI in every scene with practical effects only as basis. I hate modern filmmaking so much.

This is pasta, and completely wrong.

Wish I could live in Wallaces pyramid place, literally perfect for a NEET such as myself

Because you can't dislocate a mans head practically.
Also rotoscoping a head a bit lower is not a visual effects in terms of becoming "dated" when it's literally the shot footage just a bit cut and moved around you dumb turboautist

Feel free to tell me where it's wrong

>lets cgi every fight scene because we can't be bothered to do proper choreography
Meanwhile, Tom Cruise is doing all his stunts himself. Villeneuve is a goddamn hack, using every industry gimmick under the sun alongside Deakins.

No feminine penis skin jobs?

I'll hack you into pieces for having a negative opinion about this movie, how about that?

The process is not at all important if the final result is the same, and it's safe to say that literally no one noticed that even you user

>t.D.E.N.N.I.S.

It is important when you rely on CGI and other gimmicks to finalize a shot. Even the underwater shots are touched up with CGI. And while I didn't notice that particular opening fight scene, because it's intense and over in a second, and the lighting masks everything, I noticed the blatant overuse of CGI throughout the film, and the boundaries between sets/miniatures and CGI. I don't think they even used a single matte painting in the entire film. I don't want to watch films that are in essence glorified video game cutscenes, where every shot is less a natural shot than it is the equivalent of a photoshopped image.

The fact that it resembles Drive a lot?

it's the lighting for me, feels too contrived

same it was unsatisfying.
>comically evil villain, treats the synthetic humans he creates like less than dirt
at least I believed Tyrell actually cared.
>mixed messages about A.I. waifu, Joi, and Joe's own capacity for consciousness and free will.
The A.I. was preprogrammed to love him and called him Joe (just like the generic advertisement), and therefore didn't actually love him or have the capacity, it was mere illusion. (I assume this was the point of his later encounter with the giant holographic version of Joi). Because Joi has the same creator as Joe, this, I assume, applies to Joe as well. Therefore although Joe facially accepts his own consciousness and agency, he really isn't free or conscious. idk. its confusing. Is he a real boy or just a puppet?
>Joe craves true and pure love, but this is again shown to be an illusion by the giant Joi encounter.
Everyone is a fucking degenerate, but Joe, who just wants some sort of real love, more than physical pleasure. The stupid Joi over the body of the whore scene was hot, but didn't fit in with the movie or the themes.

Also everything with Harrison Ford was terrible, because they tried to make it campy, with lame witty lines, which didn't fit either character or the situation.

Her was better.

>It is important when you rely on CGI and other gimmicks to finalize a shot
Literally every film today is, even films that are praised for their practical effects like Dunkirk or Fury Road are filled with CGI to touch up the practical set pieces, just like with BR2049. Takw OP's shot for example, it's basically 99% practical and the rest is CG, the difference is basically non existent
>I noticed the blatant overuse of CGI throughout the film
No you didn’t, most of the shit you mentioned ITT you didn’t notice at all. You're probably surprised how much of it was CGI when you saw the VFX reels not knowing that it is.
>I don't think they even used a single matte painting in the entire film.
Again imaginary headcanon. Syd Mead, who worked on the original, worked on this one too, all the Vegas backdrops are Syd's matte paintings.
>I don't want to watch films that are in essence glorified video game cutscenes
How is anything that you said an indication of a "glorified video game cutscene"? Videogames are not made with practical set pieces, they are not "finalised" with vfx, they are vfx.

It's funny how BR2049 made a ten times more genuinely emotionally investing romantic story in just a side story of the film compared to Her where that's the entire film.
This is most evident in that exact prostitute scene in Her which is entirely forgettable and comes out completely flat, while in BR2049 it's one of the best scenes of the entire film.

It's a boring movie that makes dumb people think they have seen something profound, when it's just a dull film. Think how retarded an average Sup Forums poster is and they love the movie here. That should speak for the quality of the movie.

Boring" is not a valid argument, it only says what your mood was while watching the film.
Same as saying "it was fun", that does not indicate anything about the actual quality of the film whatsoever.

What you find boring others can find riveting and vice versa. Some people are immensely bored by Marvel flicks, some of them think they are just pure fun.
Get better arguments

>Also everything with Harrison Ford was terrible, because they tried to make it campy, with lame witty lines, which didn't fit either character or the situation.
Sup Forums never ceases to amaze me with non-sequitur analyses.

The point of the scene with Joi is that while he realizes the artificial constructs that he is and emtertained he can still transcend that into something “real” by fighting for the other replicants and save Deckard while reuniting him with his daughter.
Its why they have that voice-over callimg back to the one eyed replicant talking about being human in such an act.

I like 2049 well enough but it wasnt a good sequel and really tred no new ground or posed any new ponderings on the subject matter.

all the Harrison Ford scenes felt horribly forced and the dialogue was terrible.
prove me wrong.

Easily best picture of the year. I was shocked. I thought hollywood was 100% cucked

>he realizes the artificial constructs that he is and emtertained he can still transcend that into something “real” by fighting for the other replicants and save Deckard while reuniting him with his daughter.
>Its why they have that voice-over callimg back to the one eyed replicant talking about being human in such an act.
yeah I get that that was the surface message and point of the scene, which was terribly contrived and stupid, but the deeper implications are what it meant about the whole Pinocchio plot, and how it was self-defeating.

all the Harrison Ford scenes felt completely natural and the dialogue was great.
prove me wrong.

>a ten times more genuinely emotionally investing romantic story in just a side story of the film compared to Her where that's the entire film.

To weird loners? Sure. No one cares about you.

It's beautifully shot. Sound track is amazing but honestly it's the ending and the story.

Original had a happy ending.
This one not so much. The only guy you root for dies and what he dies for essentially destroys humanity. Without being able to replicate replicant reproduction humanity would grow stagnant and die.

And that's what happened. Humanity will die in a couple hundred years because the offworld colonies will fail. Only replicants will survive and if humanity can't make enough replicants replicants die as well.

reddit logic right there, nice mental gymnatics user, the movie sucks, deal with it

For most people the actual physical "love" part falls apart completely in Her, especially in any scene where the love part wants to be materialised (the prostitute sex scene, that sex scene where Joaquin just lays and talks to her) which come off as extremely cheesy and quirky which in result end up falling completely flat. As I've said, funny how there is the exact same concept of the threesome between an AI, a prostitute and a man in Her and literally no one ever talks about it because the execution of the scene is like any standard rom com flick, the AI part is completely secondary.

Spike Jonze didn't know how to approach the concept of a man falling in love with a computer in a serious way so he had to make it extremely quirky to have an excuse for most scenes, while in BR2049 it's executed completely tasteful with zero pretense.
Not to mention that Her is quintessential soycore

Actually boring can describe how media is actually making someone feel. Like it can make someone feel inspired. Learn English.

go back to r e d d i t

>Literally every film today is
Literally not an argument. That's why I call it a gimmick, and every other industry standard also.
>Dunkirk
Dunkirk was shot on 70mm and has heaps more detail to work on that the 4k digital 2049 was shot on.
>No you didn’t
But I did. And I don't mean I noticed it was CGI due to being poor CGI, I mean that it clearly isn't a practical effect and is CGI. But some of cityscapes look especially horrid, where they poorly blended the weather effects with the miniatures, relying on low lighting to mask it.
>Again imaginary headcanon
It's not imaginary to assume the worst from a Hollywood CGI spectacle.
>Videogames are not made with practical set pieces
In a way they are, they start up with drawn storyboards, and shots are modeled before being rendered. In that sense, the practical effects and untouched shot in film serve only as a basis for the finished product, and are rendered just as a video game cutscene. It's glorified then when it tries to pass itself off as film, when barely any of it is even filmed. They could have depicted the floating devices Wallace uses to see using practical effects, or done it differently. They could have simply not relied on CGI for every scene like 2049 does. Even one CGI effect is one too many.

Give one actual argument against any sentence there, "le reddit" brainfarting is just embarassing

trips of truth

>Actually boring can describe how media is actually making someone feel
Yes, but that is not a valid argument, just like saying that a film is good because it's fun to you. You find this boring, others find it extremely riveting and went to see it 5 times in theaters. None of them are arguments.
Get better arguments

literally every time, anti br posters have no clue
you fit right in with your pals

>They could have simply not relied on CGI for every scene like 2049 does
No it didn’t

That scene is CGIed, the background is.
>look mom, on-set natural lighting a la kubrick, a real set!
>look mom, I'm directing!
How does it feel being impressed by a gift-wrapped capeshit movie?

It's almost too perfect, there's nothing really wrong with it. Film wise thats boring. Ridley Scott's baby.

>That scene is CGIed, the background is.
It's literally pitch black night, no background to be seen my man

its reddit nail grasping at straws again, seething yet too retarded to ever come up with anything
>literally cant even into basic vocabulary
retarded underage dipshit
>>>/codcomp/

What about this, which mental gymnastics will you do about this scene?

I don't care what anyone says. That actress put on 30 lbs of fucking muscle for that movie. Like legitimate fucking muscle. That's some tom hardy as bane shit

great actress.

>grasping at straws
yes yes you're so right user

Should have rolled with my the fan theory of an Engineer being in one of those vats.

Ridley already tied the Universes together in Prometheus

Do you not realize most of the city scenes were miniatures?

Based toiletposter

ITS THE GUY THAT MADE PROMETHEUS

Steroids

Tom Hardy already admitted it

>it's a real set
>therefore they didn't use any CGI and if they did it was warranted
Nice argument, brilliant. Meanwhile, Kubrick used zero (0) CGI in Barry Lyndon and it looks far better (and of course is a far more worthwhile film) than 2049. Etc, etc, many such films. Therefore, CGI use in 2049 is a mere gimmick, a crutch that ultimately ruins the merit of its practical effects and sets.

>Even one CGI shot is too many
Why?

>this good looking not at all sci fi film has no CGI so BR2049 should not use CGI also
>the use of CGI is bad even when I don't even notice it
Spoken like a true mental midget.

Should've Villeneuve invented holographic projection also?

>>Sup Forums

Ew, Barry Lyndon used sound effects that where clearly added in post, why didn’t the actor just punch the other actor, instead they added a clearly artificial punch sound effect. I’m tired of directors relying on sound effects as a crutch. If it’s added in post it’s 100% bad!

>Dodges question because he doesn’t have a rebuttal

None of those encased replicants have dicks. K doesn't have a dick. That's why he has a fake girlfriend cause he can't fuck her anyway.

Nah the encased ones are just the special cuck models, K has a big ol dong

>cgi OP scene
>cgi cityscape despite miniatures
>cgi holograms
>cgi weather
>cgi underwater shots, for who knows what reasons
>cgi flying vision-machines in wallace scenes
>cgi every single shot
>fake snow, couldn't even get a snowmaker on set
>don't even notice it
The point of comparing to other films that are non-scifi is that every 2049 set photo posted ITT and praised as some kind of marvel in filmmaking has been done before, in films made before CGI even existed. There's nothing special about 2049 having piratical effects and real sets, there's absolutely nothing to praise in that regard. That's like praising a book because it has a different cover design than the exact same book but with a different cover. What is relevant is the overused CGI, which signifies the state of the Industry and its reliance on every gimmick under the sun.

...

>>cgi OP scene
Only the replicant models
>>cgi holograms
As opposed to what, real life holograms?
>>cgi weather
What?
>>cgi underwater shots, for who knows what reasons
Only the small ripples, maybe to use a good take where the water was clear
>>cgi every single shot
As clear by multiple pictured ITT, nope.
>>fake snow, couldn't even get a snowmaker on set
Again imaginary headcanon
>>don't even notice it
Yes, you didn’t notice 90% of it

>waaaaah every film should have revolutionary never seen before techniques and set pieces in order to be considered a good film waaaaaaaaah
Embarassing

care to elaborate on that?

Just imagine a bunch of plebs unable to get that the leitmotif of the movie are fertility/sterility, even when they are directly told so.

I find bad writing, bad dialogue and sterile visuals boring. I’d buy that the movie is ‘supposed to look empty’ but every Deakins’ movie looks the same

>every Deakins’ movie looks the sa-

is that supposed to prove me wrong?

>no no trust me every deakins film looks exactly the sa-