Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Blade Runner 2048

Aaron Lochert said:
Here's a short film (first of three) directed by Luke Scott (Ridley's son) that bridges the gap between the original (2019) and the upcoming movie (2049).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn-csFKhQCg

Click to expand...

Hmmm. That short really did nothing for me. I'm also really surprised how bad the focus is on Jay. Not a big fan of all the unnecessary edits and angles either. If this was a music video, then sure.
 
Oh man. Nice photography, but this Blade Runner 2049, by its trailers and short, is utterly empty. This is a good lesson that good film is not merely images, but screenplay; and great film has depth to the story behind the screenplay. The Industry's safe, formulaic kitch is an insult to cinematography.
 
Runtime 2 hr 43 min (163 min)
Sound Mix Dolby Atmos | Auro 11.1 | DTS (DTS: X)
Color Color
Aspect Ratio 2.35 : 1
Camera Alexa Mini
Arri Alexa XT Studio, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses
Negative Format Codex
MXF/ARRIRAW
Cinematographic Process ARRIRAW (6K) (source format)
Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
Dolby Vision
Printed Film Format 70 mm
D-Cinema (also 3-D version)

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec
 
Neil Abeynayake said:
Runtime 2 hr 43 min (163 min)
Sound Mix Dolby Atmos | Auro 11.1 | DTS (DTS: X)
Color Color
Aspect Ratio 2.35 : 1
Camera Alexa Mini
Arri Alexa XT Studio, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses
Negative Format Codex
MXF/ARRIRAW
Cinematographic Process ARRIRAW (6K) (source format)
Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
Dolby Vision
Printed Film Format 70 mm
D-Cinema (also 3-D version)

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec
Click to expand...

If it was shot on Alexa Mini and Alexa XT Studio, then IMDb has their source format (6k) wrong.
 
Kyle Wright said:
If it was shot on Alexa Mini and Alexa XT Studio, then IMDb has their source format (6k) wrong.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Someone at IMDB or a contributor made a mistake.


Sensor raster: 2880 x 1620 active pixels (16:9)
2880 x 2160 active pixels (4:3)
3414 x 2198 active pixels (Open Gate)

Image aperture: 23.76 x 13.37 mm / 0.935 x 0.526" (16:9)
23.76 x 17.82 mm / 0.935 x 0.702" (4:3)
28.17 x 18.13 mm / 1.109 x 0.714“ (Open Gate)

Output resolution: up to 2880 x 1620 (16:9)
up to 2880 x 2160 (4:3)
up to 3414 x 2198 (Open Gate)

Speed range: 0.75 - 120 fps (16:9 - ALEXA XT)
0.75 - 90 fps (4:3 - ALEXA XT)
0.75 – 75 fps (Open Gate - ALEXA XT)
0.75 - 60 fps (16:9 - ALEXA Classic)
0.75 - 48 fps (4:3 - ALEXA Classic)
all speeds adjustable with 1/1000 fps precision

Format: 12bit logarithmic uncompressed ARRIRAW

Notes:
An ALEXA with XR Module upgrade offers the same speeds as ALEXA XT cameras. 4:3 sensor mode is available on the ALEXA XT Plus, ALEXA XT M, ALEXA XT Studio, ALEXA Plus 4:3, ALEXA M and ALEXA Studio.
Open Gate Mode is available on ALEXA XT cameras only.

Source: http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/workflow/working_with_arriraw/arriraw/format/

It is a good camera for some people.
 
Well...

Mixed feelings...depending on the context.
Perceived alone...this is a very good movie, and definitely a cinematographic achievement...and hats off to everyone making it happen. Art design, cinematography, VFX, actor's performances, sound, directing...hats off.

In the context of the original...I have set myself a projection of the original just before the sequel. That wasn't a good decision. Because it conditioned expectations and accentuated the differences.
So...if you expect the same or similar feel...don't.

Because no...Cronenweth's visual aesthetic and Vangelis music score and overall ambience they define in the original, making it special...are something else.
There practically isn't any music here.

But a very good movie overall...
 
The visual aesthetics in 2049 follows the story, which is how it's supposed to be. There's so many people wanting a carbon copy of the original, which wouldn't work at all. I really like how they built upon the original look and feel and made it fresh. It's themes and philosophies are extended and the slow pace support the atmosphere. I'm glad they kept nostalgia to a minimum. Otherwise it would've been like the Ghost in the Shell movie which forcefully copied scenes from the anime into another story entirely without true scene specific context.

A carbon copy of the original would not have worked today. It would've come off as a shallow nostalgic trip in niche form. This one actually tells a story about K that stands on it's own and hold up as a fantastic sequel. There's not a lot of franchises that managed to do this.
 
I'm surprised: the movie is not doing as well as expected financially...

"Despite critical praise and optimistic tracking, Warner Bros./Alcon/Columbia’s “Blade Runner 2049” has crashed hard at the box office, grossing just $31.5 million in its opening weekend from 4,058 screens against a reported budget of $150 million."
https://www.thewrap.com/blade-runner-2049-crashes-box-office-31-5-million/

“Blade Runner 2049” is heading for a downbeat $31.5 million opening weekend at 4,058 sites in North America. Sunday’s estimated result throws serious doubt onto what had been high hopes for a box office success story. In one of the most surprising turnarounds in recent years, “Blade Runner 2049” fell far short of expectations, which had been in the $45 million to $50 million range at the start of the weekend amid stellar reviews, strong advance ticket sales, and the revered status of 1982’s original “Blade Runner.”
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/box-office-blade-runner-2049-opening-weekend-1202583660/

"The long-awaited follow-up to Ridley Scott's 1982 cult classic grossed $31.5 million from 4,058 theaters, a dismal start for a movie that cost $150 million to make after tax rebates and incentives. Heading into the weekend, all signs pointed to Blade Runner 2049 taking in $45 million or more. One issue: The sci-fi epic runs 163 minutes. To boot, it skewed heavily male (71 percent) and older, with 86 percent of the audience over the age of 25, including 63 percent over 35."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...-office-careens-course-315m-us-launch-1046846
 
I thought the movie was beautiful. It felt more like a 200 million dollar arthouse-movie without compromise then a cash-in blockbuster thing. Which makes me very proud of not only the director but alsof of the producers who supported this, and the studio. This together with stuff like Paramount supporting mother! of Darren Aronofsky makes me happy for mainstream cinema that isn't just superhero stuff with a lot of explosions.

I thought visually the movie was *really* a beautiful experience, but as a movie, story, I thought it was a perfect companion piece of the original. It shows all the other side of the medal, of all the questions asked in the first movie. I don't think the storyline that had Jared Letto was developed well, and seeing what they did with it (no spoilers), they might as well left it out. But all the rest of the movie felt like going DEEPER into the themes of the first movie. More layered, more complex. I really loved the movie.

Like the Before Sunrise/Before Sunset/Before Midnight trilogy, I found, artistically it was a perfect follow-up to the first movie, that makes it like something to see in pairs.
Great work from everyone involved. (BTW: Damn, after seeing Drive, The Nice Guys, La La Land, it seems like Ryan Gosling can't do wrong, what a great actor)

EDIT: I'm not surprised, like the original, it isn't doing SUPERwell at the box office. It has a slow tempo, not a lot of action, is very introspective.
On the other hand: reviews have been very good, and that seems to be peeking a lot of interest in people, and in Belgium the theatre was completely full and they were playing it in 3 rooms at the multiplex. Word of mouth seems to be very good too, so I think this movie has a lot of room to grow. If you look at movies like Titanic (not that I think Blade Runner 2049 will make that kind of money) it was a movie that did mmkay in the first weekend, a bit better in the second weekend, and so on.
 
Marc Wielage said:
I'm surprised: the movie is not doing as well as expected financially...


"Despite critical praise and optimistic tracking, Warner Bros./Alcon/Columbia’s “Blade Runner 2049” has crashed hard at the box office, grossing just $31.5 million in its opening weekend from 4,058 screens against a reported budget of $150 million."
https://www.thewrap.com/blade-runner-2049-crashes-box-office-31-5-million/

“Blade Runner 2049” is heading for a downbeat $31.5 million opening weekend at 4,058 sites in North America. Sunday’s estimated result throws serious doubt onto what had been high hopes for a box office success story. In one of the most surprising turnarounds in recent years, “Blade Runner 2049” fell far short of expectations, which had been in the $45 million to $50 million range at the start of the weekend amid stellar reviews, strong advance ticket sales, and the revered status of 1982’s original “Blade Runner.”
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/box-office-blade-runner-2049-opening-weekend-1202583660/

"The long-awaited follow-up to Ridley Scott's 1982 cult classic grossed $31.5 million from 4,058 theaters, a dismal start for a movie that cost $150 million to make after tax rebates and incentives. Heading into the weekend, all signs pointed to Blade Runner 2049 taking in $45 million or more. One issue: The sci-fi epic runs 163 minutes. To boot, it skewed heavily male (71 percent) and older, with 86 percent of the audience over the age of 25, including 63 percent over 35."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...-office-careens-course-315m-us-launch-1046846
Click to expand...


Unrealistic expectations > fantasies of gain > reality kicks in > perceived loss due to offset to fantasy

Reality = the movie made $ 31 Million in three days.

Common delusional mental disorder in today's world.


It is likely to make much more over time because it's not a typical blockbuster type and profit/time chart of these types of movies differs compared to fast-fried, simple sentence superhero bang-bang. Looks like some analytically dominant mindsets didn't get the memo.


Christoffer Glans said:
A carbon copy of the original would not have worked today. It would've come off as a shallow nostalgic trip in niche form. This one actually tells a story about K that stands on it's own and hold up as a fantastic sequel. There's not a lot of franchises that managed to do this.
Click to expand...

The original is defined by specific light-designed visual aesthetic and memorable music score.

Thick blacks, contrasty light, coloured lighting combinations filling the frame with punchy film palette. Vangelis musical artwork and sound design merged into one and crafted with best synths of the time and highly praised classics today.
Visual and musical part making that movie what it was.

Both of which are here non-existent, with all the resources they had. Mild pleasing light, low saturated simple colors, no music. Synths ? Few tones here and there with similar but very basic sounds, cashing in on nostalgia. End credits some basic, effect-seeking noise, compared to one of the most recognizable electronic themes of all times, which added the unforgettable emotional closure to the story.

Completely different movie for me, using same topic and similar art design.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
The original is defined by specific light-designed visual aesthetic and memorable music score.

Thick blacks, contrasty light, coloured lighting combinations filling the frame with punchy film palette. Vangelis musical artwork and sound design merged into one and crafted with best synths of the time and highly praised classics today.
Visual and musical part making that movie what it was.

Both of which are here non-existent, with all the resources they had. Mild pleasing light, low saturated simple colors, no music. Synths ? Few tones here and there with similar but very basic sounds, cashing in on nostalgia. End credits some basic, effect-seeking noise, compared to one of the most recognizable electronic themes of all times, which added the unforgettable emotional closure to the story.

Completely different movie for me, using same topic and similar art design.
Click to expand...

You wanted a copy of the original. You wanted to hear and see the same things. This is not what making a sequel is about, that's just copying a style and paste it on top of another story. This follow-up story demanded something else and I do not think that the original aesthetics would have worked if just copied over. You are inviting the kind of catch-22 scenario for filmmakers in which if they did copy and paste the aesthetics they would have gotten criticism that they just copied everything and made a lesser version of the original while as it is now, they built on top of it and had to invent it's own aesthetics in some places, they get criticism that it doesn't feel like the original.

It's an impossible task you are demanding from them. But they chose to built on top of the previous movie and expanded ideas while setting their own atmosphere. It's exactly the right choice because the other would just have been mindless fan-service and nothing more.

If you demand more of the same, you will get the the same over and over and nothing more. If you want to expand, you need to accept variation and differences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top