Open discussion about ILM and the magic they create. Also VFX and movies in general. Anyone can post topics here.

Moderator: malducin

#33458
ShaneP wrote:
PaulILMFan wrote:Blade Runner 2049.........what a long & boring film. Looks good set & FX wise but man did they really mess the film up. Its a simple story just poorly edited the scenes do not flow it takes 1.5 hours to really kick into gear then after a few brief action sequences it goes back to walking through treacle mode! Shame as it looks so good & shows a harsh & believeable future earth.

Makes STMP editing look like MTV :eek2:


Haven't see the movie yet, but Deakins is one of my favorite cinematographers and he is getting Oscar talk for this.
Don't fall for the excessive hype Shane the movie is weak conceptually its like a 163 min commercial for a hellish dystopian near future. It does that really well like a cross between Outland, 12 Monkeys (B Willis) & Brazil but unfortunately that is about all it does give you a fantastic but hellish near future earth.

I disliked Star Trek Into Darkness but even that contains way more entertainment than BR2049 and even TFA I really did not care for either but that also contains more entertainment and is less boring than BR2049.

Ford shows up for about 2 pages of dialog & about 15 min's total screen time. He has allowed himself to be used to sell the movie but Ryan Gosling is the only actor in almost the entire movie the rest come & go or in Ford's case are barely ever in it (he does not even show up until the last 40 min's). Ford is more of a cameo with about 3 scenes in total.

Major spoiler below avoid if you do not want to spoil the ending!

Spoiler: show
They spend around 2 hours giving us a backstory to K's (Ryan Gosling) character then he gets killed off & they cut to Harrison having a happy ending which also ends very sharply. This is so frustrating the film had potential but it fails to execute & deliver the story.


Another major spoiler about returning franchise characters!

Spoiler: show
They also bring 3 characters back from the 1982 movie. Sean Young in her prime still cannot figure if its her or a perfect CGI facial replacement skinjob the work is flawless in bright light but she only has about 1 min screentime & serves no real purpose either. I think she must be another actress with a similar likeness but so close to the original beauty.
#33459
Kmart wrote:I remember thinking on first screening that the original didn't get 'into gear' till he was searching for the origin of the snake scales ... and that it went back to slow mode shortly thereafter. Still thought it was a great movie, and within five or six more viewings it became a classic for me. I've probably seen it ... maybe 120 times by now? Pretty good, considering I also like the novel and figure a good movie could be made from it that didn't owe much to the Scott film.

I haven't seen 2049 yet, but I'm very interested in it, as I keep thinking it is its own thing rather than a by-the-numbers sequel. And BR deserves that kind of approach. Plus (and this might be due to all the David Lynch exposure I'm getting lately), I'm starting to really get into s-l-o-w movies ... it may have started with STALKER about 10 years back. Anyway, if I can find a decent theater up here showing it in 2D, I'm going as soon as I am out from under a lot of writing deadlines. I remember a particular theater showing GRAVITY that was about a half-hour away and that looked good, so I'm hoping BR turns up there in a non3D form. I have seen maybe three movies in the theater since GRAVITY (which I saw three times, JUST to marvel at the visuals), so you understand this is a BIG deal for me.

Does anybody think the Academy is going to feel ashamed enough to award Deakins this time round? I've covered several of his films for ICG and HDVP, and except for HAIL CAESAR, every time I thought, 'this one is going to be it.'
Lower your expectations...a lot BR2049 is a mess and not in a good way. If you do not mind sitting there for almost 3.5 hours (lots of comic book movie ads attached to the print) . BR2049 takes a long time to get going & when it does its all over effectively. This movie makes STMP look like 1980s MTV to me editing wise the pace & timing is way off shots go on for ages but serve no real purpose as its established very early on the type of dingy dark murky atmosphere so no need to continue in that style. There is not a single shot in the entire movie which even remotely matches anything spectacle wise from the 1982 sadly!

If 2001 was a 10/10 and 2010 was say an 8/10 & BR 1982 a 10/10 then BR2049 would be about a 5 & most of that is due to how well they depict the near earth future. That alone is worth seeing but I think Deakins work is over hyped here like the actual movie itself. Most of its murky, misty, foggy or at night to conceal the need to create more expensive CG backgrounds. Its not even Hammer horror atmospheric mist or murk either more like the digital softening filters on the camera lense added in post production. The light does not seem natural at times the movie has a digital look about it which is not very pretty. They even take the cheap option with some of the flying cars the cityscapes are bathed in a weird dark grey to mask detail I half expected Jack The Ripper to jump out its so murky at times!

You will probably see it anyway go for a 2D showing as Deakins says that is what he recommends!
https://www.rogerdeakins.com/film-talk/ ... -2d-or-3d/
#33460
Kmart wrote: I'm starting to really get into s-l-o-w movies ... it may have started with STALKER about 10 years back. Anyway, if I can find a decent theater up here showing it in 2D, I'm going as soon as I am out from under a lot of writing deadlines. I remember a particular theater showing GRAVITY that was about a half-hour away and that looked good, so I'm hoping BR turns up there in a non3D form. I have seen maybe three movies in the theater since GRAVITY (which I saw three times, JUST to marvel at the visuals), so you understand this is a BIG deal for me.

Does anybody think the Academy is going to feel ashamed enough to award Deakins this time round? I've covered several of his films for ICG and HDVP, and except for HAIL CAESAR, every time I thought, 'this one is going to be it.'


To the latter bold first, I would hate to think AMPAS would give someone an equivalent of a Lifetime Achievement award and not for the work at hand but they have a habit of doing that for others so wouldn't be too surprised if it happened here.
To your first point, lol, I am in about the same boat. I just finished watching Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds the other day again after several years and just enjoyed how it takes its time to let scenes breathe. The space makes the violence and action more startling. So many movies today are just non-stop action, action, action, there isn't time for any kind of tension to build or develop. I am almost looking for the anti-action or "let's destroy the Earth for the twentieth time" movie at this point.

That's just my old curmudgeonly opinion.

@PhilILMFan, don't worry about me falling for the hype. One thing that's happened to me over the last several years is a buildup of mental armor increasingly impervious to Hollywood bullshit marketing(and that includes the new Star Wars movies too, which I thought have been fun so far but okay….reach higher Lucasfilm).

By the way, how many ****ing trailers did this BR2049 have anyway? Twenty? They never stopped!
  • 1
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28