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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on Monday March 5, 2018 @06:35AM from the closer-look dept.

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).

107 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

First by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 06:44 · Score: 0, Insightful

Movie sucked who cares
1. Re:First by The+Grim+Reefer · 2018-03-05 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  Movie sucked who cares
  I thought it was very good. Certainly much better than I had ever expected for a sequel of the original. But considering that the average gross for the 5 Transformers movies is around $290 million, I can see how Blade Runner wouldn't do very well. There's way too much quite time and not enough "esplosions" and cut scenes for most movie goers these days. Especially for a sci-fi movie.
2. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  You're either too young or too stupid to know a good movie from a bad one, then. But you like shiny eyes. Congrats.
3. Re:First by neilo_1701D · 2018-03-05 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  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, permanent change" K goes through is his death, and we don;t see the change he enabled in others. Too Neo for my taste, but then my tastes aren't necessarily everyone else's tastes.
  But, it was an absolute visual delight to take us on that story, and well worth the two Oscars it won.
4. Re:First by i_ate_god · 2018-03-05 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  we never saw K die. He was just resting on some snowy stairs.
  
  --
  I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
5. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, we did. If you look closely, he stops breathing.
6. Re:First by zlives · 2018-03-05 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  thats why they gave everyone a fidget spinner who went to watch the movie... personally i didn't need mine :)
7. Re:First by nanospook · 2018-03-05 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he has a shutdown / hibernation mode ? I know what you mean though I saw it too..
  
  --
  Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
8. Re:First by zlives · 2018-03-05 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  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.
9. Re:First by Samantha+Wright · 2018-03-05 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  The music cue is the clue. K was definitely meant to be understood as kaput.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
10. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  Do replicants even have hibernation mode? I feel like that's stretching a bit to rationalize an ending where K/Joe (is it "deadnaming" if a replicant attains humanity and you call them by their replicant name?) doesn't die...
11. Re:First by neilo_1701D · 2018-03-05 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  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.
12. Re:First by i_ate_god · 2018-03-05 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  I will have to rewatch.
  It seemed K's fate was ambiguous
  
  --
  I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
13. Re:First by Hal_Porter · 2018-03-05 07:36 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
14. Re:First by OpenSourced · 2018-03-05 07:37 · Score: 2, 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, and I was not wrong. Synthetic narratives have a way of sucking that no honest narrative can imitate.
  
  --
  Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
15. Re:First by Nidi62 · 2018-03-05 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
16. Re:First by sexconker · 2018-03-05 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  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.
17. Re:First by dwywit · 2018-03-05 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
18. Re:First by dwywit · 2018-03-05 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  " I asked to myself "why?"
  Yet it made you ask questions instead of spoon-feeding everything to you.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
19. Re:First by DeathElk · 2018-03-05 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  You suck.
20. Re:First by The+Grim+Reefer · 2018-03-05 10:27 · 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 suppose 2001 was a bad movie in your mind too.
  Or were you actually arguing that the Transformers movies were somehow the height of good film making?
  
  But you like shiny eyes. Congrats.
  I don't even know what this means. Maybe I am old and stupid after all. Still, I'm not sure why you feel the need to call me stupid because I liked a movie that you didn't. But if ad hominem attacks are how you respond to someone with a different opinion, you may want to rethink who is young and/or stupid in the conversation.
21. Re:First by GuB-42 · 2018-03-05 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  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.
22. Re:First by painandgreed · 2018-03-05 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  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 so much they had constant public address systems calling for it in the sky. They aren't immortal, they just grow old a die like humans. It naturally follows that they would be able to procreate like humans. Cheaper for everybody when thousands if not millions of colonists are shipped out to the off world colonies away from crappy lives they'll never see again with just photos to remember it by. They can create more and colonize worlds quicker than humans like intelligent Von Neuman machines. Thus I loved the movie as not only was it a good story, beautiful to watch, but it pretty much confirmed 30 years of headcanon that had been boiling in my head all this time to a tee.
23. Re:First by The+Grim+Reefer · 2018-03-05 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  I never said it sucked, that was a quote from the OP. Did you not even read that I actually liked the movie and was disagreeing with the OP?
24. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  Or worse, a re-boot. By J.J. Abrams. "You can tell that Deckard (played by Alden Ehrenreich) was a replicant, due to the lens flare in his eyes".
25. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 15:02 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you thank you thank you.
  This movie had all the subtlety of a hammer to the forebrain; it wasn't interesting or insightful, it was just ploddingly, violently pretentious.
  Just to be clear, I'm a huge fan of the original.
  The final fight scene was overly grotesque for no reason (while the original was meaningfully painful at just the right moments). The scene with the policewoman ranting about replicants was so hammy and badly-timed/placed that I laughed out loud in the theater. The ideas about humanity could have made up for all of this, if they'd done anything meaningful with them (the hologram g-friend did a great job, though, I admit. those parts got me).
26. Re:First by ruemere · 2018-03-05 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  That was really jarring part for me. Guy known as "constant" K. And he even does not do first aid on himself. Why?
27. Re:First by ruemere · 2018-03-05 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  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?
28. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-06 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on if I liked it or not. No other metric helps a subjective judgment.
29. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-06 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  They even used the same music, Vangelis's "Farewell" if that's not a big enough clue.
  What more do you want? A "tears in snow" speech? :)
30. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-06 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  They had to make it 4 years, because longer than that and the emotional development of the Nexus 6's would make them impossible to control. It wasn't arbitrary, it was a compensation for a design flaw.
31. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-06 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  He actually said "I thought it was very good. " someone has reading problems.
This sad and worthless movie by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 07:03 · 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.
1. Re:This sad and worthless movie by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  Frankly, I was more gripped by 2049 than the original.
2. Re:This sad and worthless movie by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  Likewise. My main issue with 2049 was that it was too loud.
3. Re:This sad and worthless movie by neilo_1701D · 2018-03-05 07:15 · Score: 2
  
  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.
4. Re:This sad and worthless movie by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Likewise. My main issue with 2049 was that it was too long.
  FTFY
Who cares? by kamapuaa · 2018-03-05 07:09 · Score: 1, 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 annoying pattern of hopes getting raised despite probable disappointment.

--
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
1. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  What made the story shit? I thought it was far more interesting to see things from a replicant's perspective than that of a merc hired to hunt them down. The question of whether Joi is a real person or not was far more interesting than that contrived "is Deckard a replicant or not" tripe.
2. Re:Who cares? by wonkey_monkey · 2018-03-05 07:23 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  ...in your opinion.
  Plenty of people seem to disagree with it.
  As for artistry, it also won Best Cinematography.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
3. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  2049 was a worthy successor to the first movie. Your opinion is shit.
4. Re:Who cares? by zlives · 2018-03-05 07:33 · Score: 3, 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.
5. Re:Who cares? by iggymanz · 2018-03-05 07:45 · Score: 3, 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?
6. Re:Who cares? by erapert · 2018-03-05 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  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.
7. Re:Who cares? by omfglearntoplay · 2018-03-05 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  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.
8. Re:Who cares? by ljw1004 · 2018-03-05 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  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.
9. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  And your "because I say so" which kind of fallacy is?
  Ah, the "I'm too cool" fallacy.
10. Re:Who cares? by thegarbz · 2018-03-05 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  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 new movie. You say it lacks artistry, I say it was worthy of winning best cinematography, ... which it did.
  As for your comment about a movie being 120minutes of CGI, I'll call you out on that. It's no secret or surprise that the best rated movies and those with the most appealing visuals over the past few years have combined restrained CGI with a copious amount of practical effects as their winning formula. Movies that are overusing CGI and effects are rightfully being demolished by reviewers for doing so and even in today's world they are miserably failing to provide a nice level of realism even for small things e.g. Superman's mustache. Blade Runner's visuals were a pleasant changed from the copiously overused CGI that is present in many movies today.
11. Re:Who cares? by sexconker · 2018-03-05 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  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.
12. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 08:54 · Score: 0
  
  More important is that the movie's story was shit, a worthless sequel coasting on the reputation of the earlier movie.
  A great many people have the exact opposite opinion of yours.
  Not that you give a fuck about that.
13. Re:Who cares? by dwywit · 2018-03-05 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  "argument from majority"
  That kind of pulls the rug out from under the concept of democracy, just sayin'.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
14. Re:Who cares? by DeathElk · 2018-03-05 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Which fucking IDIOT modded this troll? Learn to mod, dickhead.
15. Re:Who cares? by TimHunter · 2018-03-05 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  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.
16. Re:Who cares? by kamapuaa · 2018-03-05 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
17. Re:Who cares? by AmiMoJo · 2018-03-05 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  The cinematography was good though.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
18. Re:Who cares? by wonkey_monkey · 2018-03-05 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
19. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 11:59 · Score: 0
  
  Blade Runner 2049 was in no way in the same league as the original. Ditto Mad Max Fury Road, a movie which was easily the worst of the 30+ year sequels. I watched Fury Road the other night on SlingTV and was reminded quickly why it was so bad in the cinema. The only decent thing about Fury Road was the popcorn and nachos. And... there is supposedly another movie in the works. I want to see Mel Gibson in a reprise, not Tom Ford. Max Rockatansky is Mel Gibson. Full stop. An old, wizened desert rat helping out a group of people would be a good film.
20. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 15:08 · Score: 0
  
  I'd like you to take a look at how many have piled on after the fact and added on their ire.
  This movie was a plodding mess of bad acting, bad writing, pretentious ideas that went nowhere, and a sound guy that apparently was an artillery operator in Vietnam. The hologram girlfriend was the only saving grace.
  After Get Out, this movie was the last straw convincing me that people are easily led with little-to-none critical thinking for the media in front of them.
21. Re:Who cares? by DNAgent · 2018-03-05 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  You’re starting to get it.
22. Re:Who cares? by RespekMyAthorati · 2018-03-05 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
23. Re:Who cares? by Cederic · 2018-03-06 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  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.
24. Re:Who cares? by Cederic · 2018-03-06 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  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..
25. Re:Who cares? by thegarbz · 2018-03-06 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
26. Re:Who cares? by Cederic · 2018-03-06 03:25 · 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.
27. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-06 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  i think they should have kept "Rachel" from showing emotions because that was the only way to catch her fakeness
  Indeed, that's how Deckard exposed her as a replicant in the first film (no spoiler alerts; you've had 36 years to see it).
  What I don't get is this line:
  "How 'Blade Runner 2049' VFX Supervisor John Nelson Brought Rachael & Pic's Holograms To Life"
  In what way was Rachael a hologram??
28. Re:Who cares? by erapert · 2018-03-06 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  It would have been... if he hadn't referenced other people's opinions to try and make his own seem more "right" or legitimate.
29. Re:Who cares? by wonkey_monkey · 2018-03-06 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say anything about what my opinion is, or whether other people are "right."
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
30. Re:Who cares? by FormOfActionBanana · 2018-03-06 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Take off every 'sig' !!
31. Re:Who cares? by erapert · 2018-03-06 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  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?
32. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-06 10:19 · Score: 0
  
  OK but that is nothing to do with holograms. I think people have gotten confused by movie/TV usage and think any 3D image of a live person is a 'hologram'?
33. Re:Who cares? by thegarbz · 2018-03-07 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  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.
34. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-09 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Same AC here...actually reading the article, it doesn't say Rachael is a hologram. It just mentions re-creating her in the same sentence as the question about the holograms.
Someone still cares about Oscars? by Evtim · 2018-03-05 07:20 · 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
1. Re:Someone still cares about Oscars? by loftarasa · 2018-03-05 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  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...
2. Re:Someone still cares about Oscars? by argStyopa · 2018-03-05 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't miss anything.
  BladeRunner2049 or wtf it was called was absolutely execrable.
  My original comments at https://slashdot.org/comments....
  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 story' was what dragged this down. All of the things that really hurt this film were ALL directorial choices.
  - pacing: Villaneuve is suffering George Lucas disease. He needs more people to stop telling him how brilliant he is and give him solid criticism. At 2:40 this thing could have easily been an HOUR shorter. Long, drawn out, frankly dull establishing shots were self-indulgent and just felt like you're watching someone show you the 100th slide of their family vacation. It's interesting at first, but ultimately you just DON'T CARE ANYMORE. It's not THAT cool.
  - focus: part of the above, partly its own thing. Don't get me wrong, I've long since gotten past my Ridley Scott fandom (Prometheus? Fuck you Ridley I want my $ back), but a terrific choice he made in the first film is to spend relatively little focus on the tech of the era. Sure it's there, and he can't help but notice, but he's not obsessing over the flying cars, etc like BR2049 did.
  - product placement: I don't give a shit if Peugot dumped a pile of $ at you. Stop shoving brands in my face. Better that they'd stuck with the Pan Ams and ATARI of the first film.
  - the deafening soundscape: Jesus Christ my ears were nearly bleeding after that. Fire your sound man, immediately.
  - pointless plots and characters: Why was Leto even IN this film? As a foil, he did literally nothing except kick a dog (a dog we didn't care at all about, btw, so pointless).
  - enormous plot holes - the murder in the police station went rather more smoothly than I'd imagine it would; if replicants reproducing is such a earth-shattering thing why build them with ovaries, or even functional uteruses? I have to imagine engineering OUT the 'rag once a month' would (have been) advantageous to the utility of replicants generally?
  - the flying car dogfight? Jesus. I don't know where they were going with Deckard (or why?), but if you're fleeing pursuit, here's hint: turn off the 100k-watt cabin lights that make you a lighthouse? Guns on police flying cars?
  The Economist nails it https://www.economist.com/blog... [economist.com] - I'd have used the word ponderous, but bombastic works just as well.
  
  --
  -Styopa
3. Re:Someone still cares about Oscars? by AmiMoJo · 2018-03-05 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  The Shape of Water is pretty good. A compete inversion of the monster movie trope. Not very PC at all, I mean interspecies sex...
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:Someone still cares about Oscars? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  Not that we're beastophobic here and prejudice against the LGBTIPPB community.
5. Re:Someone still cares about Oscars? by DNS-and-BIND · 2018-03-05 14:37 · Score: 0
  
  Deep Space 9 is science fiction? Where's the science? There's no science. It's not science fiction. Deep Space 9 is a drama set in space. Heck, the later seasons are a serial, like a soap opera.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
6. Re:Someone still cares about Oscars? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 15:37 · Score: 0
  
  Ha. Sure nerd. You'll hate Spiderman XIV, but you'll still have to collect it.
7. Re:Someone still cares about Oscars? by dwywit · 2018-03-05 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  "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? So removing breeding abilities, or limiting lifespan, is a "feature" that you have to introduce.
  BTW I agree with everything else you said. It's a good film, it could have been a better film with 2 things - less noise, and tighter editing.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
8. Re: Someone still cares about Oscars? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-06 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  But the bad guy likes cars, and is white, and the Russian spy is sympathetic, so when none of the caringly detailed and styled sets blow up, and you're expected to have warm feelings for an immigrant and a fish, totally PC, short for Please Cherish.
  Tenderness is a globalist plot.
9. Re:Someone still cares about Oscars? by UnknownSoldier · 2018-03-06 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  > TFA was the last straw for me..
  /sarcasm What? You don't enjoy all the regurgitated re-cashgrab remakes??
  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)
  * Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)
  * Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993)
  * Robin Hood (2010)
  /sarcasm How could you not LOVE masterpieces such as Stupid Wars: The Latest Junk (SW:TLJ) !!
  > Rewatching ST DS9 ATM. Now that is proper Sci-Fi....
  You are in for a treat. Last year I finished watching ST:TNG and DS9. Loved them both. Currently watching Voyager (on season 5) but it is so bloody boring that I keep falling asleep.
  * Farscape is on the "To Watch" list -- heard great things about it.
  * I've seen an Episode of Black Mirror -- loved it.
  * The latest re-incarnation of Star Trek, The Orville is good. STD, Star Trek Discovery is crap.
  Other "decent" Sci-Fi:
  * Battlestar Galactica (2004) - Holy shit, this was freaking AWESOME! Excellent writing and acting.
  * Caprica (2009) - OK, had potential; worth watching if you liked BSG
  * Continuum (2012) - Good; Struggles to be great. Worth watching simply because it is far better then the rest of the junk out there currently. Status: Ending this year w/ Season 4.
  * Extant (2014) - Complete and utter shite and I even *like* Halle Berry (well, I did, before her boob job) Do we get an endurance badge for watching it? SO much potential and it is completely squandered time and time again.
  * Futurama (1999) - EXCELLENT, Smithers. Oh wait, wrong character ;-) TONS of great science jokes.
  * Forever (2014) - Loved it! (technically NOT sci-fi) Status: Cancelled :-( Bloody suits.
  * Terra Nova (2011) - Started to like it by the end of S1; had potential. Great cliffhanger at end S1! Status: Cancelled. Forever in limbo :-( Bloody suits.
  * The Tomorrow People (2013) - Meh. Status: Cancelled.
10. Re:Someone still cares about Oscars? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-06 14:22 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget:
  When Things Were Rotten!
Altered Carbon is better by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2018-03-05 07:21 · Score: 2

Than BR49. Characters and plot FTW.
1. Re:Altered Carbon is better by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  "Altered Carbon" is shit on a stick, adorned with pretty pictures instead of story or acting, a castrated adaptation of a boring book.
2. Re:Altered Carbon is better by zlives · 2018-03-05 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  better... ?!
  i really liked it and can't wait for next season. what is real when anything is possible... good show.
3. Re:Altered Carbon is better by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  Are you talking about the books because the Netflix series was absolutely terrible. Sure it was fun to play "where did the director rip that off from?" in every scene but when you whole series is ripped off garbage with no care about continuity or plausibility.. Seriously a bunch of AIs that look like with people with very intentional human looks playing poker and giving Poe (another AI) a hard time for him trying to look human and for doing human things... Yeah, the whole series is that good.
  Now if you were saying "Altered Carbon is absolutely terrible but is much better than BR49".. Well OK, I'll give you that one.
4. Re:Altered Carbon is better by AmiMoJo · 2018-03-05 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:Altered Carbon is better by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 12:59 · Score: 0
  
  wew. the hollywood shills really don't like you. look at all that astroturfing.
Sucks by sexconker · 2018-03-05 08:56 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Sucks by dwywit · 2018-03-05 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  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 cinema where I saw it had "blown" and it was very jarring. I've just bought the blu-ray and I'm contemplating whether to make some notes about some judicious edits.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
2. Re:Sucks by iggymanz · 2018-03-05 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  I believe the original Blade Runner movie was the greatest science fiction movie ever made, and many agree. This "sequel" was unworthy garbage.
3. Re:Sucks by Cederic · 2018-03-06 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  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 certainly wouldn't call it garbage.
4. Re:Sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-06 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  Aliens was a decent action film and a shit science fiction film.
  Fusion reactors don't explode when you destabilize them.
  Fission reactors don't do that, either.
  James Cameron fails at understanding how nuclear technology works.
5. Re:Sucks by iggymanz · 2018-03-07 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  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.
6. Re:Sucks by Cederic · 2018-03-07 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  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.
7. Re:Sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-07 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't think it was "garbage," though it wasn't what I had hoped for. Visually it was stunning, but it failed to explore the themes in any depth.
  In your opinion, what should it have been like plotwise/characterwise?
8. Re:Sucks by iggymanz · 2018-03-12 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  "Most people" didn't bother to see it, about 11.5 million did here in the USA, going by $92M gross / $8 per movie.
Better than the First by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 12:53 · Score: 0

There, I said it. I honestly though it was better than the original. But then again, I loved Prometheus and Covenant, too. Transformers, not even on an airplane. Superheros? Sure, Deadpool and (surprisingly) Bat vs. Super, the rest, meh! I fell asleep in one of the batmans (with baine).
BR2049 deserves a few more viewings. I saw it the first time in a movie theatre, big screen, big sound, and yes, I was underwhelmed. I spent the 2 hrs 49 minutes waiting for the ending, for the punchline - which never happened. BR2049 is about the journey, about perfection.
Forget K, it's Luv that you should be watching, she steals the whole movie. If you can go back and rewind that first scene where they meet. Starting with K and the clerk. It's perfection. The clerk's facial manerisms, how he openly insults and taunts K talking about his baby pictures and then K insulting him back. Then seeing the clerk skulk away as his boss, a replicant, takes over. K flirts with her and she falls for it.
This movie is all in the minutiae. But nothing is explained, you have to make your own conclusions. It's one of the most beautiful movies I've seen.
The overriding problem by slashmydots · 2018-03-05 18:54 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:The overriding problem by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-06 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  I thought the point was that Tyre-- I mean, Wallice was so stinking rich that he could afford such indulgences even in a world of scarcity?
2. Re:The overriding problem by FormOfActionBanana · 2018-03-06 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Like what? K's cramped apartment? Or you mean the wasteful stairwells where there could have been a less film-friendly elevator? Or???
  
  --
  Take off every 'sig' !!
Saw 2049 on mushrooms by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-05 19:41 · Score: 0

Glad it won, it made for an epic experience!
I bet there is no inertia model... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-03-06 01:22 · Score: 0

I haven't seen the film, but I bet that when anything starts from a standstill, or rapidly slows down (i.e. a CGI person/alien/robot/whatever jumps off something onto something else, or anything is thrown by anything else) it doesn't look remotely convincing. Just like all other CGI on the planet - isn't that strange?
Isn't it strange how the Lord of the Rings films were ruined by this complete lack of realism throughout all of the CGI, and the new Planet of the Apes films, etc.etc.?
It's almost as if they deliberately made it look unrealistic by using an incorrect gravity and inertia model... so that when you saw CGI they WANT you to think is reality, you really will think it's real - i.e. not in films, but in the 'news'... (government propaganda, in other words).
They can't even produce a simple CGI rendering of a ball falling off a step onto the ground. Seriously. Just ask any of the major CGI companies that have worked on blockbuster movies in the past two decades to produce something as simple as that for you, to begin with - they can't do it - it will look like CGI. You will immediately know it isn't real.
1. Re:I bet there is no inertia model... by FormOfActionBanana · 2018-03-06 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  What the fuck are you talking about?
  
  --
  Take off every 'sig' !!