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).
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).
Re: (Score:1)
You're either too young or too stupid to know a good movie from a bad one, then.
I don't know what the average age of /. readers is, but I'd guess I'm at least twice that. I grew up watching movies that actually took time to unfold. While I enjoy hour and a half long action movies that are full of one-liners and explosions for no apparent reason, other than to look cool. I also appreciate movies that don't do this. I have the patience to sit through a long movie too. Hell, I not only have the movie version of Das Boot but also have the 5 hour long miniseries version as well. I suppos
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you define a "good movie"?
Blade Runner won an Oscar, has a 87% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which is good. By all objective metrics except maybe for financial success, it is a good movie. It may be interesting to see how it will do 20+ years from now but people who can see the future are too busy winning lotteries.
Re: (Score:2)
thats why they gave everyone a fidget spinner who went to watch the movie... personally i didn't need mine :)
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst the movie took it's sweet darn time to tell it's story and blasted our eardrums with Tuvan throat singing, it hardly sucked. The vfx actually complemented the story and didn't get in the way, like any number of action films where the "action" becomes a pixel mess on the screen or the actors perform woodenly against a green drape with nothing to react to.
Was it a good story? It could probably have been told in less than half the time, but the story was good enough - even though the "meaningful, perm
Re: (Score:2)
we never saw K die. He was just resting on some snowy stairs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about?
They're "more human than human". He's dead, and the scene was a ripoff of (or "reference to", if you're being generous) the ending of the first movie.
Re: (Score:2)
I will have to rewatch.
It seemed K's fate was ambiguous
Re: (Score:2)
death of a machine... if we can add memories.. can we then not replicate them, what is eternity and life then. Also i like the new NetFlix Altered Carbon series... lets see if they take it further.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
we never saw K die. He was just resting on some snowy stairs.
Oh come on... This is the protagonist of the movie who has been stabbed deeply, with his last shot being of him lying down, eyes closing with a dramatic pullback. No, we didn't get the "Hollywood" death like Miles Dyson had in Terminator 2... but we didn't need it. It had far more subtly than that - and was, frankly, a relief.
Re: (Score:2)
we never saw K die. He was just resting on some snowy stairs.
Oh come on... This is the protagonist of the movie who has been stabbed deeply, with his last shot being of him lying down, eyes closing with a dramatic pullback. No, we didn't get the "Hollywood" death like Miles Dyson had in Terminator 2... but we didn't need it. It had far more subtly than that - and was, frankly, a relief.
Hell, my dad still refuses to believe John Wayne died at the end of Sands of Iwo Jima, and they leave him laying face down in the dirt.
Re: (Score:2)
Movie makers usually don't muck about when they want you know someone is dead. BR2049 didn't muck about showing the deaths of other characters. There's enough doubt about K's fate that we're arguing about it - so I think the final scene was deliberately ambiguous.
I immediately thought "thery're leaving the door open for another film" when I saw that final scene.
Re: (Score:2)
That was really jarring part for me. Guy known as "constant" K. And he even does not do first aid on himself. Why?
Re: (Score:3)
I liked it. It was kind of slow and thoughtful but that's no bad thing.
Then again I'm a Bladerunner fanboy and I'm easily pleased. Hopefully they don't run the Bladerunner franchise into the ground they way that Star Wars and Star Trek have been with loads of unnecessary subpar sequels.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Movie sucked who cares
Amen to that. From the moment I saw on screen the initial "explanations" where they mentioned "open-ended lifespan" for some replicants models I asked to myself "why?" Not only why would anybody allow immortal replicants at all, but why would anybody think that could improve the story in any conceivable way. Then it hit me that they needed them for reasons, because that's the only way they could concoct a story where you could somehow shoehorn Harrison Ford. Then I knew the film was going to suck big time,
Re: (Score:2)
" I asked to myself "why?"
Yet it made you ask questions instead of spoon-feeding everything to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen to that. From the moment I saw on screen the initial "explanations" where they mentioned "open-ended lifespan" for some replicants models I asked to myself "why?" Not only why would anybody allow immortal replicants at all, but why would anybody think that could improve the story in any conceivable way. Then it hit me that they needed them for reasons, because that's the only way they could concoct a story where you could somehow shoehorn Harrison Ford. Then I knew the film was going to suck big time, and I was not wrong. Synthetic narratives have a way of sucking that no honest narrative can imitate.
I figured that all out thirty years ago. While watching the VHS trying to find the scene where Deckard's eyes glint like a replicants, it all came to me when Roy calls Deckard by name even though they've never met in the movie. "More human than human" is the Tyrell corp motto. Rachel and her fake memories and photos. Deckard with his photos of a crappy previous life we have no other evidence of. The previous Bladerunner who looked suspiciously like Deckard. That they needed people for the off world colonies
Re: (Score:2)
Open-ended does not equal immortal. It's like Windows system - will run until it breaks. And frankly, four year lifespan never made any sense from economical standpoint - with so many gaps to be filled by cheap physical labor, four year limit was way too low. It also stands to the reason that android programming advanced sufficiently to allow for predictable behavior for longer time. So why not increase the lifespan?
Re: (Score:2)
You suck.
This sad and worthless movie (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Likewise. My main issue with 2049 was that it was too loud.
I loved the menace of the Tuvan throat singing... I hated that it blasted me into my seat.
Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Tyrell 2.0, Deckard 2.0, etc.
I bet you like the First Order in the new Star Wars films, too.
Or the new attractions in Jurassic World.
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
The cinematography was good though.
Re: (Score:2)
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].
Re: (Score:2)
"argument from majority"
That kind of pulls the rug out from under the concept of democracy, just sayin'.
Re: (Score:1)
You’re starting to get it.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say anything about what my opinion is, or whether other people are "right."
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Which fucking IDIOT modded this troll? Learn to mod, dickhead.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They used CGI to reproduce the actress pretty much as she looked in 1986 (or whenever). I think that is what he means by hologram.
My problem is the actress Sean Young should have been paid for the use of her likeness. I doubt she was.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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..
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Tens of millions of people saw the movie, so surely a lot of people liked it and a lot of people didn't.
It didn't do very well at the box office and wasn't nearly as well-received as the original, so obviously a lot of people would agree with me, too.
Someone still cares about Oscars? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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?
Re: (Score:2)
The Shape of Water is pretty good. A compete inversion of the monster movie trope. Not very PC at all, I mean interspecies sex...
Re: (Score:2)
> 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
Altered Carbon is better (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
better... ?!
i really liked it and can't wait for next season. what is real when anything is possible... good show.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Sucks (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the original Blade Runner movie was the greatest science fiction movie ever made, and many agree. This "sequel" was unworthy garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Most people" didn't bother to see it, about 11.5 million did here in the USA, going by $92M gross / $8 per movie.
The overriding problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like what? K's cramped apartment? Or you mean the wasteful stairwells where there could have been a less film-friendly elevator? Or???
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck are you talking about?