Jump to content

Blade Runner 2049


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

When I was growing up in the 1970's, there were a lot fewer screens, and almost all theaters were single-screen venues. So it's hard for me to not think that we have a glut of screens today -- I'm surrounded by multiplexes with 12, 15, 18 screens each just in my corner of Los Angeles.

Yes, there were fewer screens, but they were in more locations. Today, everything is so centralized, it's hard to even find a theater in small towns anymore. In fact, where I grew up in Boston, we lost around 10 theaters in my lifetime alone, maybe even more. The funny part is, there are more "screens" then ever before, but less venues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's sad, but inevitable. I myself, between work and family, simply can't get to the cinema more than a few times a year.

Tell me about it. As I was watching Blade Runner, I was saying to myself; "Why did I come here, I have too much work to do"

 

I generally only go to the cinema to see prints of movies these days. If it's being projected digitally, unless it's something I really wanna see like Blade Runner or Star Wars... I don't care enough and will see it on video.

 

This year so far, I've seen 5 movies in the theater, two digital and 3 film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For most people going to the cinema is a social effect, a night out. They go with their mates, girlfriend, wife, lover, etc. people watching on their own are a smaller percentage. In that regard it's the same as a concert or other events, although cheaper than many such events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For most people going to the cinema is a social effect, a night out. They go with their mates, girlfriend, wife, lover, etc. people watching on their own are a smaller percentage. In that regard it's the same as a concert or other events, although cheaper than many such events.

 

 

Yes agree .. that s what will keep it going I guess.. no one can just stay at home al the time.. we like to get out and check out other people.. but the choice of broadcast TV programs.. at a certain time in the evening, on certain days.. or going to the Cinema .. seem to be over.. as cine screens get smaller mulitscreens.. and TV,s bigger.. and the inter web distribution of content.. and TV content just getting to be very good if you pick the good stuff.. and you can watch films too.. Ill be up for at least $125 to take my family to the cinema .. with parking and the shite food they have there.. and hope i dont get some idiots talking through the whole thing.. and then the endless remakes ,sequels etc.. its a bit of a hard sell..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, my experience too: in the 70's there weren't a lot of cinemas. Going to the films was a real event - catching train into the city on a Saturday morning with friends. It was a lot of fun. The theatres were huge, with enormous red curtains covering the screen. An organist was off to one side playing a Wurlitzer in some of the theatres. He would play themes from the film usually. Then slowly sink into the pit (literally, on a hydraulic lift) as the curtains opened and the ads came on (still picture frames that were slid into place by hand). Next the movie film ads came on. Time to go and get a packet of Jaffas or some popcorn or ice-cream. House lights dimmed and then the "short" as it was called was shown - a short film usually about 30 minutes long, or less. Then if finished and, rather magically, the large red curtains would close. Anticipation grew. The audience instinctively got silent as they saw those curtains close. Then the film projector came on again, and if it was a big feature movie you would see the projectionist flip the cinemascope lens in front of the light hitting the curtain. You would hear the funny rolling, mechanical sound as the dark screen outlines shifted to 'cinemascope position,' at the same time as the curtains opened again and then the film company logo was there on the screen. It was a very 'theatrical' procedure. I think I've remembered the sequence correctly - it was a while ago. Then after the movies it was take away meal, then down to the video/pin-ball arcade for a couple of hours, then back to the train station and home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked Villeneueve's vision of the 'Blade Runner' world, mostly because we're dealing with a character who has an awakening of a much deeper reality that is rather sad and empty. I find that in this life, the whole concept that humans have a soul, and that there is an after-life is nothing more than a comforting lie. In the first installment you have replicants searching for their maker to prolong their lives, but most importantly they want answers as to why they exist, they have inherited this existential curiosity of what our place in the universe is. I deeply admire Philip K. Dick and his vision of the future, I firmly believe the world is on the verge of destroying itself with nuclear weapons which will deeply affect the world's ecosystem and cause world wide famine and cataclysms that will endanger our species, I've even read articles that mention how the price of water will skyrocket, seeing as fresh water is scarce in most third world countries, and turning salt water into purified water requires so much energy, that it is currently an engineering impossibility. The future is bleak for humanity in the Blade Runner world, and the newer model of replicants seem to be united for one common purpose, something that humans can't do. If you look closely all humans are depicted as violent and genocidal; Sullivan even remarks how his replicants have occupied 9 planets in outer worlds, so I assume there are more replicants than humans at this point. Life has become synthetic, so to some degree some parts of the movie make very little sense, such as the Robin Wright character worrying about information leaking to the mass public, concerning the replicant that can reproduce life, I mean replicants must have outnumbered humans by now at this point, I assume, since Sullivan mentions he has created "millions" of these replicants for the sole purpose of slavery. The film wasn't a box office success, so I don't think we'll be watching the sequel to BR:2049 anytime soon, but I'd sure like to see where it goes from here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Jaffas" is plural for "Jaffa" in Australia: small spheres of chocolate, covered with orange-flavoured red sugar coating. Famously associated with the movies here, at least some years ago. Named after a small, sweet orange.

 

Anyway, back to Blade Runner ... please excuse my reminiscence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.The film wasn't a box office success, so I don't think we'll be watching the sequel to BR:2049 anytime soon, but I'd sure like to see where it goes from here.

 

The returns on a film can only really be judged in the longer term. This film is more in the Art House crossover variety than the straight blockbuster, so getting a high return in the first weekend was unlikely.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41546692

 

https://www.screendaily.com/news/blade-runner-2049-tops-international-box-office-on-502m/5123040.article

Edited by Brian Drysdale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe we have a soul - that we are not merely biological machines. But I can say no more, I believe, as I think the rules state we're not to discuss such topics :)

 

You will find that ancient civilizations invented answers to most of life's mysteries, some people believe that the world is merely a few thousand years old, when in actuality it is 4 billion years old, this is all evidence based data. The human genome project revealed that all life on earth is related to one another and that we evolved from a replicating single-cell organism. We are biological machines confined by the laws of nature, humans tend to be rather ego-centric about themselves, exaggerating their importance, if you only took a glimpse at the real world, people die every day in horrendous ways, people of all ages, and there is no hope in sight to save us from our selves. Most of the elements that life is made up of here on Earth is common throughout the universe, it is only that space distances are so vast that we are unable to find other life similar to ours. We're really not so special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every point you raise I've gone through many times. I'm familiar with all the arguments for and against, both material/scientific and spiritual. I've spoken with many people and read many books and seen a lot of things. Yes, there's a lot of dark in the world. But that's not the final answer, there is light beyond the dark, that is more powerful, and which is the final truth of our existence. But, you do have to search for it, and never give up searching. If you do, in all sincerity, believe me, you will find it. If you want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a masterpiece, gotta say it's a way different experience seeing Alexa footage (well, Deakins is only one of the few capable of making it look that way) blown up on a giant IMAX screen, looks as fabulous as can be expected, although yes, I do miss the ana 35mm texture. There was zero digital motion blur, so I don't know what that was about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Saw it over the weekend. Didn't think it looked like Blade Runner, in the most part. I'm sure Deakins would tell us that he didn't want to feel constrained and that he's entited to his own vision, but frankly it didn't look like it took place in the same world. And yes, I appreciate that I am questioning the Deakins and this is not allowed, but that was my reaction to it.

 

Didn't think the problem was Alexa or choice of lenses. Lacked contrast and punch. The desert scenes were just "huge orange softlight."

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Didn't think the problem was Alexa or choice of lenses. Lacked contrast and punch. The desert scenes were just "huge orange softlight."

Agreed, it's not an "Alexa" issue, it's just the way they choose to color it. I don't know why everyone goes for that HDR look these days, I'm kinda over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Agreed, it's not an "Alexa" issue, it's just the way they choose to color it. I don't know why everyone goes for that HDR look these days, I'm kinda over it.

I was just having this conversation... It's interesting, I was watching "Minority Report" the other day and it almost feels dated because of the high contrast compared to today's modern stuff. I didn't feel it with this "Blade Runner" (I loved the look of this movie), but it's obvious in something like this which is at the top of our modern pop culture...

 

 

It just looks like RAW uncorrected footage to me, but it's definitely a new style. I see loads of high end commercials that are color corrected like this. Any DP's here that shoot big commercials and music videos encounter this approach? And any idea how it became a thing? Did people see RAW or LOG footage and think, "I like this just the way it is." then it caught on?

 

EDIT: and to be clear, I don't dislike the look, I'm just wondering why and when it became such a trend.

 

EDIT 2: a colorist I know just told me I'm ten years behind recognizing this trend, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I hate the look, I'm done with it. Everyone wants me to color poop in that style today and it kills me.

 

I just finished this Music Video. Shot on Alexa, I was brought in to do the finishing work.

 

https://vimeo.com/232741759

 

I worked so hard to make it feel less digital in post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I hate the look, I'm done with it. Everyone wants me to color poop in that style today and it kills me.

 

So what does the director or DP or whoever ask for when they want this style? Gimme the "flat"...? Gimme the "looks like you didn't touch it"...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of commercials on tv here have a milky look that I despise. It literally looks like milk has been doodled into the image with a whisk. I don't know what it is, where it comes from, but it's pretty obvious someone high up likes the look because they keep churning the muck out.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

After Seven, the BB look was all the rage for about 10 years. Wayyyy too contrasty stuff. This also coincided with the DV, DSLR and early video era, and stuff looked terrible. The low con look was a reaction to that and in some respects is still there today. Just wait, it'll change again, don't worry.

 

I personally would take a lower con grade over an overly contrasty one any day of the week. Nothing looks worse than completely crushed blacks. Just looks cheap, like you tried to compensate for the inferior DSLR footage by crushing it more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...