Jump to content


Photo

Blade Runner 2049


  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#1 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3634 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 October 2017 - 01:24 AM

Blade Runner 2049.... Beautiful, Elegant and cinematic, but lacking the soul of the original movie. It's seemingly an 85 page script expanded into a 2hr and 47min movie, thanks to long shots/takes, exposition and meandering dialog, tries to mimic the original film, but misses the mark.

 

The story is about suppressing the idea that replicants can reproduce, meaning they can be considered sentient. This would cause havoc because they would get rights and not be slaves anymore. This in of itself is a cool idea (been told many times), but the film focuses too much on it and not enough on what the characters do outside of that particular story. This is what made the first movie so great, there was so much depth to the characters and what they did outside of the A plot. Not the case with this new movie and it really causes some trouble because you expect more and it's just not there.

 

Of course, the other major issue outside of it's extreme length, is that you know the outcome way before it's revealed. The plot is so paper thin, when the "twist" happens, you're like... yea I figured that out 2 hours ago! They just keep feeding you pretty shot after pretty shot, thinking you'll forget, giving you some action in between the dialog that's meaningless. Plus, without spoiling the plot, the movie feels like the beginning of a trilogy, rather then a one off. I felt the filmmakers were setting the stage for a much bigger project, which barely explored, but left me wanting a resolution, rather then a big open door that leads to nothing. I mean don't get me wrong it's well made, even more so then Arrival, which I really liked.

 

Deakins did a masterful job, it looks stunning. You can tell Deakins worked really hard with the set designers to integrate as much lighting into the set (practicals) as possible, which was a nice look. It appears he stuck with his usual roughly 35mm focal length, but on the bigger imager I'm sure it's more like a 50mm. Most of the lighting setups were amazing, I mean flat out beautiful. Very inventive stuff from lighting through what appears to be water and onto walls, so you can see the water/wave action on the walls. To lights that follow characters as they walk through the set. It's very clever stuff and took a lot of prep and I'm sure testing, to make it right. I love how Deakins shoots action scenes, he doesn't go for those shaky cam close up shots, he uses the same focal length, a lot of times even keeps it on the dolly still. It's just the way movies should be made and I wish he would shoot more action films, he brings a breath of fresh air to the genera. 

 

I did think some scenes looked a bit "videoesque" probably due to a lower shutter speed in dark moments. It did break me out of the story a bit in some cases because it seemed like something was wrong but it was just a decision. I was also upset Warner didn't release it in 2.20:1 aspect ratio, that was a fail for other cinematographers because I would have loved to have seen the full imager instead of it always being cropped. 

 

In terms of the other aspects, the music was reminiscent of the original movie, which was nice. I did feel some moments were too strong, but over-all the score worked well. I'm a stickler for a good score and Hans Zimmer did a great job. The effects were also stunning and I hate VFX, but man did they do a good job. The entire time I was saying to myself, what if they had this much money on Arrival, how much better would it have looked. I loved the mix of practical with models with CG, it was a perfect blend. Where I wasn't a fan of the CG characters in the movie, it was more because they weren't necessary, rather then the quality of the finished product. The effects crew can be proud of this achievement and outside of Christopher Nolan movies, I can't think of another filmmaker who has done such a good job bringing all these elements together in modern times. It great to see and I truly hope they're rewarded with their stunning effort. 

 

Now.... there wasn't a lot of good news to be said for the acting. I wasn't impressed at all with the cast or the direction of them. They all felt very stale and flat to me, my friend used the word "dull" and I would agree with her. Harrison felt distant, there were moments he and Ryan Gosling could have conversed about the past and really become friends, but those never happened. Ryan Gosling's character is also very flat and even though he has a relationship with a CG character, it's uninteresting and should have been deleted. It's as if they tried to make him so emotionless to make it more realistic, but it didn't play well at all. The other supporting characters were ok... but as my friend put it, you don't see anyone else BUT the lead/supporting actors. No extras, no bystanders, nothing! It's a city of millions, you see dots in the overhead shots but none near the actors. Oh well... 

 

When leaving, I said to my friend, this thing isn't going to make it's money back. It's too damn long, it's too dull and frankly, people don't see serious Scifi films like this anymore. The box office for friday was miserable and I bet it stays that way. I bet it makes 30M this weekend, 8M next weekend and dies off by the 3rd weekend. The reviews are good, but the word of mouth is so-so and unfortunately, I'm gonna be another one of "those guys" giving it a mediocre review.


  • 0

#2 Alexis Marcoux

Alexis Marcoux
  • Sustaining Members
  • 81 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 October 2017 - 07:28 AM

I seen it yesterday and I had a great experience. Love that movie! Amazing job from Villeneuve, Deakins and the CGI team! And that soundtrack, wow!! People should go see it in theatres and judge for themselves. This is not an ordinary movie... It very special. Pretty sure it will do really well in the box office for weeks to come.


  • 0

#3 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5464 posts
  • Director

Posted 08 October 2017 - 01:38 PM

I was going to see it, but at three hours long, that falls into the Netflix category for me.  That way I can pause it when I need to.  It did fall short of financial expectations, but how can anyone be surprised?  The current youth that see movies have no clue what a "Blade Runner" is.

 

And I guess since this movie relied on Canadians to direct and star in it, it's proof what presidents keep saying about immigrants who come to America....they are doing the jobs Americans refuse to do. :)

 

R,


  • 0

#4 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3634 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 October 2017 - 03:53 PM

Some interesting points on the reason why it's a tough box office sell. 

 

https://www.forbes.c...e/#6ace267224fb


  • 0

#5 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 08 October 2017 - 04:58 PM

3 hours?

 

Crap...

 

It's rated R?

 

Crap, can't take the kids.

 

... and has women making out with each other?

 

Crap, definitely can't take the kids or the wife.

 

Guess it's one to watch on the computer.


  • -1

#6 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2998 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 October 2017 - 05:24 PM

 

I did think some scenes looked a bit "videoesque" probably due to a lower shutter speed in dark moments. It did break me out of the story a bit in some cases because it seemed like something was wrong but it was just a decision. I was also upset Warner didn't release it in 2.20:1 aspect ratio, that was a fail for other cinematographers because I would have loved to have seen the full imager instead of it always being cropped. 

Why would Warners release it in 2.20:1 when it was framed and composed for 2.40:1? The open gate sensor is 1.5:1 which is not generally a display AR


  • 0

#7 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5054 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 October 2017 - 05:32 PM

The original film didn't do well on theatrical release.

 

The R rating is not too far off the AA rating that the 1982 film had in the UK.

 

Women making out with women is not that unusual in films these days.


  • 0

#8 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 08 October 2017 - 05:40 PM

The original film didn't do well on theatrical release.

 

The R rating is not too far off the AA rating that the 1982 film had in the UK.

 

Women making out with women is not that unusual in films these days.

We're not in the UK.

 

And it's not unusual, mostly because of who makes films, not because of those who watch them. Good luck selling to Christian families in Flyover.


  • 0

#9 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5464 posts
  • Director

Posted 08 October 2017 - 05:45 PM

 Good luck selling to Christian families in Flyover.

 

Yeah, The Dove Foundation, didn't go for it:

"This film will not be awarded the Dove-Approved Seal due to the use of profanity in the form of a few F-bombs, as well as graphic violence, resulting in murder, and frequent nudity. However, this movie is an aesthetic masterpiece and advances a narrative that is thought provoking and ultimately redemptive."


  • 0

#10 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 08 October 2017 - 06:55 PM

 

Yeah, The Dove Foundation, didn't go for it:

"This film will not be awarded the Dove-Approved Seal due to the use of profanity in the form of a few F-bombs, as well as graphic violence, resulting in murder, and frequent nudity. However, this movie is an aesthetic masterpiece and advances a narrative that is thought provoking and ultimately redemptive."

I thought you were kidding but it's real. http://www.dove.org/...de-runner-2049/


  • 0

#11 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5464 posts
  • Director

Posted 08 October 2017 - 07:17 PM

The reviewer did like the look of the film at least. :)

 

R,


  • 0

#12 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1578 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 08 October 2017 - 07:22 PM

Yeah, "mother!" didn't get a Dove seal either, but the review was surprisingly open to that film's value as a source of discussion:

 

http://www.dove.org/...w/12546-mother/


  • 0

#13 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5464 posts
  • Director

Posted 08 October 2017 - 07:40 PM

Well, not everyone can be a superstar in the eyes of the Dove Foundation:

http://www.dove.org/...ainst-the-wild/

 

R,


  • 0

#14 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 08 October 2017 - 07:44 PM

Well, not everyone can be a superstar in the eyes of the Dove Foundation:

http://www.dove.org/...ainst-the-wild/

 

R,

"Language: G/OMG-4; Butt-1; Jerk-3; Shut up-1; Duh-1"

 

Wow this site is gold!!


  • 0

#15 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5464 posts
  • Director

Posted 08 October 2017 - 08:38 PM

"Language: G/OMG-4; Butt-1; Jerk-3; Shut up-1; Duh-1"

 

Yeah.....that was disappointing. :)

 

R,


  • 0

#16 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1854 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 08 October 2017 - 09:06 PM

Women making out with other women and you cant take your wife or girlfriend..  I would ditch them asap and get a new one.. !


  • 1

#17 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 09 October 2017 - 12:54 AM

Ahrrr yes....
Jim Jannard 12-19-2011:

Ridley is one of my all time favorites. Blade Runner is my favorite movie. Alien is all world. To have Prometheus "Shot on RED" is such an honor.
http://www.reduser.n...9064-Prometheus

So, er ... six years on, both Alien Covenant and Blade Runner 2048 were shot with the Alexa in scintillating (Hoik! Splat!) 2K!

Wonder Woman was shot on film....

Meanwhile, Aldi were recently selling 65" 4K TVs here for $A699.
Am I seeing a pattern here ...  :rolleyes:

THREE HOURS?!!
Bah! It's gonna be Blu-Ray on 65 inches and like it!

By the way, I only got about 30 minutes into Alien Covenant before my eyes started to glaze over, and I pulled the plug on it. Did anybody here actually like it? 


  • 0

#18 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5054 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 October 2017 - 01:53 AM

We're not in the UK.

 

And it's not unusual, mostly because of who makes films, not because of those who watch them. Good luck selling to Christian families in Flyover.

 

I suspect it's not intended for a family audience, although I do know Christians who watch quality films which have demanding content.   


  • 0

#19 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3634 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 October 2017 - 02:11 AM

Why would Warners release it in 2.20:1 when it was framed and composed for 2.40:1?


If you watch the movie, you can see moments where the framing was clearly wrong. There appeared to be more information above and below the 2.40:1 framing. This is also evidenced in IMAX promotions which show a more 2:1 aspect ratio being used for laser projection theaters, which are a native 1.90:1.

The open gate sensor is 1.5:1 which is not generally a display AR


The imager on the Alexa 65 is a native 2.28:1 aspect ratio, similar as 5 perf 65mm. I don't know why they would shoot it in "full frame" and then crop it down, makes no sense.
  • 0

#20 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5054 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 October 2017 - 02:37 AM

It's not that unusual to frame for different aspects ratios when shooting, it happened on a regular basis when shooting for TV during the transition between 4x3 to 16:9. 


  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Glidecam

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Metropolis Post

CineTape

CineLab

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape