Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Movies Sci-Fi

The Oscar-Winning Special Effects of Blade Runner 2049 (bbc.com) 107

On Sunday, 'Blade Runner 2049' won the Oscar for the movie with the best visual effects. BBC spoke to Richard Hoover, the visual effects supervisor at Framestore which was one of the companies responsible for the movie's special effects.

Further reading: How 'Blade Runner 2049' VFX Supervisor John Nelson Brought Rachael & Pic's Holograms To Life (Deadline); Behind the breathtaking visual effects of 'Blade Runner 2049' (Digital Trends); How Blade Runner 2049's VFX team made K's hologram girlfriend (Wired).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Oscar-Winning Special Effects of Blade Runner 2049

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    had only the effects going, and they were nothing special.

    We won't see anything good out of the cinema industry until Hollywood chokes on its copyrights and dies.

    Hopefully sooner than later.

  • Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kamapuaa ( 555446 )

    Who cares about special effect any more? It's all been done, the movie could easily be 120 minutes of CGI. It's about artistry, and the movie didn't have anywhere near the artistry of the first Blade Runner.

    More important is that the movie's story was shit, a worthless sequel coasting on the reputation of the earlier movie. I wasn't too fond of the acting, either. These sequels to beloved movies from 20+ years ago seem fun, but they almost never work out...Someday I'll learn but in the meantime it's an

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      ...in your opinion.

      Plenty of people seem to disagree with it.

      As for artistry, it also won Best Cinematography.

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @03:45PM (#56211969)

        You don't understand, that's Best Cineamtography at the fucking Oscars, which is meaningless. It's just people working in the industry advertising themselves and fluffy themselves. It's like electing a prom queen. Clear now?

      • by e r ( 2847683 )

        Plenty of people seem to disagree with it.

        Argument from majority is a form of argument from authority. It's fallacious.

        As for artistry, it also won Best Cinematography.

        Again: argument from authority [yourlogicalfallacyis.com].

        • by dwywit ( 1109409 )

          "argument from majority"

          That kind of pulls the rug out from under the concept of democracy, just sayin'.

        • Argument from majority is a form of argument from authority. It's fallacious.

          If you'd read my post more carefully, you might understand what I'm actually saying.

        • Argument from majority is a form of argument from authority. It's fallacious.

          No, it's not an argument at all.
          It is a statement of a personal point of view. One that is just as good (or bad) as yours.

          • by e r ( 2847683 )
            It would have been... if he hadn't referenced other people's opinions to try and make his own seem more "right" or legitimate.
            • I didn't say anything about what my opinion is, or whether other people are "right."

              • by e r ( 2847683 )
                You didn't directly say it, that's true.
                But it was heavily implied because your post attempted to contradict the OP.
                Perhaps you didn't mean to imply what your own opinion was so much as to simply take the OP down a peg or two?
      • It was a damn good movie. Apparently slashdot is a terrible place to talk about movies... I mean I'm all for complaining when CGI is a problem, but this movie was good or great all around.

        • Apparently slashdot is a terrible place to talk

          You could've stopped right there. /. is filled with trolls and people who think being contrary is the same as being intelligent and that being picky is the same thing as having taste.

      • Which fucking IDIOT modded this troll? Learn to mod, dickhead.

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by zlives ( 2009072 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @03:33PM (#56211875)

      personally i thought that this movie related to all the subtext of the original rather well. the original was probably sold as an action flick with some philosophy added to appease the fanbase (electric sheep) and writers and the creative process.
      this however took that deeper meaning and made the questions that we may ask have more nuance and extend where the story goes.

      I rather enjoyed it a lot. i think they should have kept "Rachel" from showing emotions because that was the only way to catch her fakeness, can't copy the underlying muscle.. at least not just yet plus the softness texture of skin was in stark contrast with Decker.


    • by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      I thought the film was fantastic. Good detective stories. Fascinating characters. Moving. I recognize many of the wonderful things in this film are quite different from the wonderful things in the original Blade Runner. Some lovers of the original will mistake that for thinking this one is bad.

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        I'm not sure I'd go with fantastic, but yes, it was a good film.

        Different to the original, not as good, but stands up as a good, well made and thoughful film in its own right. I thought the pacing was deliberate rather than slow, but I also rate Once Upon a Time in the West as one of the greatest films ever made so maybe I just like films that have the confidence to tell a story their own way.

    • More important is that the movie's story was shit, a worthless sequel coasting on the reputation of the earlier movie.

      While you're entitled to your opinion just know that the vast majority of movie goers and critics alike disagree with you. Personally I thought it was a worthy extension of the original, taking a lot of the original themes of class and what it means to be human and extending them. The cinematics of the movie also beautifully mirrored the original, taking the perpetually dark and contrasting it (pun intended especially given the lack of contrast in most scenes) with a light grey / single colour palate of the

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        I think I'd struggle to describe BR2049 as using restraint when it comes to CGI.

        Unless you interpret restraint as using CGI to support the film, not be the film. But I'd call that film making..

        • I think I'd struggle to describe BR2049 as using restraint when it comes to CGI.

          That's because you think CGI is awesome and think that it was done like that. You don't seem to realise that everything was built using practical effects. The entire environment is miniature. In the scenes where the car is flying around from one area to the other, the only proper CGI is the car itself, and in many cases even that is a miniature model. If that were any other film the entire world would be built entirely in a computer.

          And it shows.

          • by Cederic ( 9623 )

            Thank you for telling me what I think. Thank you for revealing what I apparently didn't realise.

            Or maybe you're a miserable cunt that should just fuck off because you're not telling me anything new and you don't know what I fucking think.

            Yes, this is flamebait. Yes, you fucking deserve it.

            • Thank you for revealing what I apparently didn't realise.

              You're welcome. Don't worry, a lot of people don't understand how movies are made and what the difference between copious overuse of CGI is vs practical effects.

              Yes, you fucking deserve it.

              Yes I do deserve your thanks. I assume that's what you meant given that you provided two statements separated by an OR. I'll just assume you meant the former.

              Yes, this is flamebait.

              Nope, it was just an example of someone who can't stand being corrected having a cry. *THIS* is flamebait.

  • by Evtim ( 1022085 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @03:20PM (#56211789)

    Incredible! There was a saying about a fool and her money..... and that's coming from someone that has spent about 10 000 bucks on movies alone....

    TFA was the last straw for me...no more going to the theater.... and no more additions to the collection.

    Rewatching ST DS9 ATM. Now that is proper Sci-Fi....

    BTW my friends that still watch Hollywood crap said del Toro's movie was absolute garbage but PC....well

    • Please make sure not to miss The Expanse if you're looking for proper Sci-Fi. It's literally the best show you're not watching: https://www.rollingstone.com/t... [rollingstone.com]
    • You didn't miss anything.
      BladeRunner2049 or wtf it was called was absolutely execrable.

      My original comments at https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
      I'm a huge Blade Runner fan. One could say it's seminal to my movie-going experience: I'm 50, so from the audience that snuck into theaters to see it (I was 15-16 when it released).

      I found BR2049 merely ok. I think there was in fact a good film somewhere in there, but it takes a lot of work to sift it from the dross.

      I'm not buying the OP's point that the 'tired old

      • by dwywit ( 1109409 )

        "why build them with ovaries, or even functional uteruses"

        Those organs produce a lot of the hormones that make females look and act like females. Omit them from the development stage and you're making trouble for yourself.

        Anyway, I never bought the argument that the 4-year lifespan was an obstacle that Tyrell couldn't overcome. It was a deliberately-introduced "fault". If you're going to genetically engineer combat, work, or pleasure models you're gonna start with a human genome and its normal lifespan, no?

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The Shape of Water is pretty good. A compete inversion of the monster movie trope. Not very PC at all, I mean interspecies sex...

    • > TFA was the last straw for me..

      /sarcasm What? You don't enjoy all the regurgitated re-cashgrab remakes [wikipedia.org]??

      I mean, one of the eleven remakes of Robin Hood has to be better then the original 1912 version, right? :-)

      * Robin Hood (1912)
      * Robin Hood (1935)
      * The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
      * The Bandit of Sherwood Forest (1948)
      * The Prince of Thieves (1948)
      * The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men (1952)
      * Sword of Sherwood Forest (1960)
      * Walt Disney's Robin Hood (1973)
      * Robin Hood: The Movie (1991)
      * Robi

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @03:21PM (#56211793)
    Than BR49. Characters and plot FTW.
    • by zlives ( 2009072 )

      better... ?!
      i really liked it and can't wait for next season. what is real when anything is possible... good show.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      And the books are even better than the TV series. I read all three as soon as they came out (first one by chance).

      The Land Fit For Heroes trilogy isn't bad either, but the Takeshi Kovacs trilogy is my favourite sci-fi.

  • The movie sucks. Admittedly, it didn't suck as much as I expected it to suck, but it still sucked and was completely unnecessary.
    The best movie I've seen over the last year is 1922.

    • by dwywit ( 1109409 )

      I get the impression that you weren't even prepared to give it a chance.

      I didn't think a sequel was needed, but if someone was prepared to put up the money, OK. I don't mind Gosling as an actor, but I was concerned he was too pretty for the role - fortunately they roughed him up quite a bit. I didn't have trouble believing his character (and I don't do suspension of disbelief very well at all).

      It definitely took too long to tell its story, and the audio FX were just too loud - one of the woofers at the cine

      • I believe the original Blade Runner movie was the greatest science fiction movie ever made, and many agree. This "sequel" was unworthy garbage.

        • by Cederic ( 9623 )

          By simple definition though, the sequel would have had to supplant the original as the greatest science fiction movie ever made for you, or inevitably be unworthy.

          Me, I'd rank Blade Runner as one of the top science fiction movies (but you wont convince me it's better than Aliens) but I'm also happy to take the sequel on its own merits. I found it a visually engaging film, slightly weak in places but overall a good film in its own right. Which is kind of all I need.

          I wouldn't describe it as unworthy and I ce

          • No, it takes a severe level of autism to conclude that saying a sequel is unworthy is equivalent to saying it must equal or surpass the original. The sequel was a bad movie, it could have been a merely good movie and I'd have no complaint. But since it was bad it's unworthy.

            • by Cederic ( 9623 )

              Well, I do have a severe level of autism, but that aside the sequel was not a bad movie according to most people.

              Which doesn't mean you're wrong, it's just that you're wrong.

              • "Most people" didn't bother to see it, about 11.5 million did here in the USA, going by $92M gross / $8 per movie.

  • Every single last indoor scene had me asking "but why the hell would they build a building/room designed like that? It's a resource-short dystopian future. They would NEVER waste time and resources on that absolute horse shit architecture." If you listen closely, you can actually hear the visual designing sniffing their own farts at some parts of the movie.
    • Like what? K's cramped apartment? Or you mean the wasteful stairwells where there could have been a less film-friendly elevator? Or???

Mater artium necessitas. [Necessity is the mother of invention].