Slashdot Mirror
The Oscar-Winning Special Effects of Blade Runner 2049 (bbc.com)
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).
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 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.
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.
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...
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
Than BR49. Characters and plot FTW.
thats why they gave everyone a fidget spinner who went to watch the movie... personally i didn't need mine :)
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?
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.
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!
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.
I will have to rewatch.
It seemed K's fate was ambiguous
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
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;
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.
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
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.
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.
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
" 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
You suck.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
That was really jarring part for me. Guy known as "constant" K. And he even does not do first aid on himself. Why?
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?
What the fuck are you talking about?
Take off every 'sig' !!