|
viral spiral posted:...oh yes, do tell us about the craft of CGI Special effects are cool and we should be trying to improve them so that future movies look better. GrandpaPants posted:Let's not accept anything about X-men 3. I will accept that it was subject to a hilarious retcon.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
Serf posted:Special effects are cool and we should be trying to improve them so that future movies look better. Way to dodge the point there, champ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:Way to dodge the point there, champ. ...right back at you, sport?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Serf posted:...right back at you, sport? My point was against CGI'ing young/deceased actors altogether, not about improving special effects. Just how disingenuous are you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:My point was against CGI'ing young/deceased actors altogether, not about improving special effects. Just how disingenuous are you? You seem frustrated for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
I should've known this guy was a troll given his racist avatar. My mistake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
I thought the effect was OK. The lighting helped a ton, IMO. The model would've looked less convincing in an outdoor or more evenly-lit scene. Too bad they couldn't model the rippling light reflection on it, though. That would've been another layer of obfuscation and probably have helped sell the effect better.
SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Oct 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:My point was against CGI'ing young/deceased actors altogether, not about improving special effects. Just how disingenuous are you? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean everyone else needs to stop trying to improve it
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:I should've known this guy was a troll given his racist avatar. My mistake. Hey now, Vegeta starts out pretty racist against humans, but he gets better. His story is actually pretty inspiring. starkebn posted:Just because you don't like something doesn't mean everyone else needs to stop trying to improve it It's just one more cool technique that can be improved and iterated upon just to make movies look better. Special effects luddism is a novel angle though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Thinking back, I can't remember any human character with dialogue who wasn't an oppressor of some kind. As far as I can tell there's: 1.) Wallace 2.) Yoshi 3.) Weird child slaver Am I forgetting anyone? The only other humans I can remember are a bunch of nameless children and some faceless scavengers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Serf posted:
It reminds me of jj's star wars and how he went back to 35mm even though one of the greatest technical achievements of the prequel series was its progression to a fully digital format and workflow. Going back to the old format seemed like a 'low-tech for its own sake' kind of move. I mean, hell, if it'd simply been about getting the best technical image quality and most seamless effects, digital would've been the way to go, and if it was a purely aesthetic desire for a truly 'filmic' look while getting as close to digital as possible in terms of technical quality, with all that Disney money he could've sprung for doing the whole thing in 70mm. I'm just a crank, but it seems to me like there really is a technically devolutionary trend among some. I'm not saying it's a bad thing by any means, but I think it's real. Edit: It is cool if it helps keep actual film alive for a while longer and sustains it as an accessible medium for lower-budget productions. ...Lord forgive me for my prequel derail post in the blade runner thread. SMG already came though, so I feel like it's OK though. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Finally managed to see this film. I am pretty disappointed. It could be viewed as a poster child of why you don't let your director go wild. While the first Blade Runner suffered from studio interference, 2049 in contrast suffered from the studio being too lenient. The main problem with the film is that it is so loving long. I was asking "when will this end?" halfway through its runtime. Don't get me wrong, there is a benefit to a long run time, as the film managed to do some fantastic world building. However, world building can only keep one's interest for so long. Each scene went on for twice as long as it had to. On top of that, many scenes weren't really needed. I mean it became very obvious that the main character was the child early on, okay they really weren't and that was the twist, but still... why drag on the film to build up something that the audience already knows? That being said, the film wasn't all bad. The world building was excellent. It was well casted. The special effects are great. I loved all the winks and nudges to the original. And on paper, the story seemed good. However, the film is too ambitious for its own good. Blade Runner didn't become a cult classic solely due to its world building, but that it is a good movie on its own. Blade Runner 2049, focused far too much on setting aside time to build an intricate world, even if the pacing and punch of the story suffer. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
I'm glad it was as long as it was, loved it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
There’s a four-hour cut of this movie somewhere.quote:WALKER: The first assembly of the film was nearly four hours and for convenience sake and – to be honest – my bladder’s sake, we broke it into two for viewings. That break revealed something about the story – it’s in two halves. There’s K discovering his true past as he sees it and at the halfway mark he kind of loses his virginity. (laughs) The next morning, it’s a different story, about meeting your maker and ultimately sacrifice – “dying is the most human thing we do”. Oddly enough both halves start with eyes opening. There’s the giant eye opening at the beginning of the film and the second when Mariette wakes up and sneaks around K’s apartment, the beginning of the 1st assembly part 2. We toyed with giving titles to each half but quickly dropped that. But what does remain is that there’s something of a waking dream about the film. That’s a very deliberate choice in terms of visuals but also the kind of pace they were striving for on set and the hallucinatory feel in the cut – it’s the kind of dream where you tread inexorably closer to the truth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Wanna see that cut.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
"The first assembly of the film" isn't really a "cut" though, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
starkebn posted:"The first assembly of the film" isn't really a "cut" though, right
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Wanna see that cut.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Thinking back, I can't remember any human character with dialogue who wasn't an oppressor of some kind. As far as I can tell there's: The mortician and the cop that dug up the skeleton box. Possibly the bald guy at Wallace Inc who helps K. Maybe the prostitutes that speak in Russian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
I assumed all the prostitutes were replicants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
I'm surprised that I am the only person disappointed with the film. Everyone on here and the critics seemed to really enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
I was definitely disappointed initially. After reflecting on it for 48 hours, I loved it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I'm surprised that I am the only person disappointed with the film. Everyone on here and the critics seemed to really enjoy it. The score could have been much better, actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:The score could have been much better, actually. Yeah, for sure. The original’s moody synths and sax thing is so distinctive that it’s a little disappointing how generic Hollywood this one is. Johann Johannsson was on board to do it originally but they switched to Hans Zimmer right before release. The stated reason was that Villeneuve wanted to sound more like Vangelis’ score for the original but... I’m not really hearing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
I really don't get that. The score isn't Vangelis but by any other comparison it's about as far from Hollywood as Hollywood scores have gotten in the last few decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
People complain about it being bombastic but I thought it loving ruled. Really made me connect with the atmosphere and visuals being thrown at me. My only complaint is that there isn't a longer version of "Flight to LAPD" because I love when that comes on toward the end of a run outdoors. https://youtu.be/EGxyGcZ5jsY Also I'm not really remembering where "Blade Runner" was in the film? I guess it's a suite of the whole score? Zimmer usually does suites much longer than 10 minutes though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
That track played over the end credits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
This is probably my favorite track from the movie. It pairs so well with the approach to the huge Wallace building. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_JgOlGq6i4
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
At the very end, I kept waiting for K/Joe to say "Time to die," as he lay dying. Roy Batty and Leon both said it in the first movie. I guess it makes sense that K/Joe wouldn't say it since he's a newer model, but still. The lingering closeup was especially anticipatory, for naught.Queering Wheel posted:This is probably my favorite track from the movie. It pairs so well with the approach to the huge Wallace building. ^ Agree 100%
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I really don't get that. The score isn't Vangelis but by any other comparison it's about as far from Hollywood as Hollywood scores have gotten in the last few decades. I stated this earlier, but the score is literally Braams; the soundtrack which have been used to death in every epic film trailer in the last couple years so it's actually really god drat Hollywood and played out. I think the film is amazing but the soundtrack kinda sucks. It fits the film well but it could have been a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Beach Rose RV Park posted:At the very end, I kept waiting for K/Joe to say "Time to die," as he lay dying. Roy Batty and Leon both said it in the first movie. I guess it makes sense that K/Joe wouldn't say it since he's a newer model, but still. The lingering closeup was especially anticipatory, for naught. Agreed. I was mouthing it silently as the scene played and scanned the theater witnessing at least half a dozen other people were doing the same or outright saying it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Beach Rose RV Park posted:At the very end, I kept waiting for K/Joe to say "Time to die," as he lay dying. Roy Batty and Leon both said it in the first movie. I guess it makes sense that K/Joe wouldn't say it since he's a newer model, but still. The lingering closeup was especially anticipatory, for naught. I thought they referenced that scene beautifully with the soundtrack and the snow and it was quite sufficient. "Time to die" would have been too on the nose and hammy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
fspades posted:"Time to die" would have been too on the nose and hammy. But I know what that is! I could have clapped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
It neither deserved nor should have had that line at that moment, but I kind of thought that of all the nods to the original, that was almost glaring by its absence. I half-expected the phrase to be slipped in somewhere. I did think the script had some moments of brilliance; my favorite was when they were examining the bones, and K, talking about the serial number marking, says, "What's that?" (The line preceding it ends with the word 'childbirth'.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I'm surprised that I am the only person disappointed with the film. Everyone on here and the critics seemed to really enjoy it. You aren't the only one. People who love 2049 seem to be giving the same style praise as Avatar fans. Pretty pictures of a cool world, but not much to think about. And sex robots aren't really all that cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Yes, 74 pages about how pretty the movie is, that's what this thread is!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
DARPA posted:And sex robots aren't really all that cool. I guarantee you'll have one before 2040.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
DARPA posted:but not much to think about Dunno what thread you're readin' my man but it sure as poo poo ain't this one 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Weak troll game, 0/10.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
It is actually a fairly hollow movie. Most of the thread has been weak rear end "What is Joi?" which always derails into AI discussions that have nothing to do with the film. And for all the talk of amazing visuals, the visual story telling in this movie is, lacking, at best. Pretty sure I already made the comparison, but this film is a retread of Ex Machina in a lot of ways. A film of gorgeous visuals with not much to say, and people focusing on "Is she human?" instead of "Holy gently caress, this is heinous!" Don't get the hate of the score though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:29
|
|
